Under the powers conferred on me by Standing Order 21.3 of the Standing Orders of Seanad Eireann relative to public business, I summoned Seanad Éireann to meet at 6 p.m. today at the request of the Government for the purpose of considering legislation to enable companies to seek court protection in certain circumstances. As you are aware, the legislation is not before the House as it has not been passed in the Dáil at this stage. I now call on the Leader of the House to clarify the position.
Adjournment of Seanad: Motion.
The position is as you have outlined. The intention was last Friday that the Seanad would meet at 6 o'clock this evening to consider the Companies (Amendment) Bill, 1990. As you have outlined, the Bill is still with the Dáil. My understanding is that the intention of the Government was that the Dáil would sit today from 10.30 a.m. until 5 p.m. to complete that particular Bill and we would then have it at 6 p.m. Yesterday, I understand, the leaders of the Opposition parties, and in particular the Leader of the Opposition, was quite anxious that there would be a longer debate and the Taoiseach and the Government, in the spirit of co-operation that they obviously like to have, decided that the debate should go on longer in the Dáil, until 10 p.m. today. We could sit at 10.30 p.m., if that were agreeable, but I think it would be very unwise to attempt that. I think the obvious and the wisest thing to do would be to meet tomorrow morning at 10.30 a.m. to debate the Companies (Amendment) Bill.
May I also say that it is the intention to have a debate tomorrow on the whole problem of the Middle East. There can be statements or a general discussion on that particular matter, to include the Brian Keenan affair, the hostage affair, a general discussion on the Middle East, which I know Members wanted in the past. The intention is that the Whips would meet this evening to arrange for the legislation and the debate.
Therefore, I move that the Seanad do now adjourn until 10.30 a.m. tomorrow.
I appreciate the position the Leader of the House finds himself in and certainly we will co-operate in the proposals he has put before the House. I would like however to make one or two observations. First of all, it is a good thing that we are not dealing with the Bill immediately after the Dáil has finished. I am very glad that we will have at least some time to reflect on what was said in the Dáil today and can come in fresh tomorrow morning to consider the Bill.
However, it is a slightly bizarre situation that we have met to adjourn. I would suggest to the Leader of the House that the Standing Order which made it necessary for us to meet now, knowing that we were going to adjourn, should be looked at by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges in due course. I do not expect to be back here soon, and I hope we will not be, in special sessions like this, but we should look at that.
I would have thought also that the Leader of the House might have arranged that we could have taken the statements on the general situation in the Middle East this evening. This proposal was made and I gather it is not possible to accede to it. I am glad we are having that particular debate tomorrow, but it would have made more sense if we had that debate this evening in the time available to us.
Just before I call Senator Norris, I want to point out that, technically speaking, we are on the motion to adjourn and I accepted that motion from the Leader of the House. We can deal with it as soon as the various statements are made by Members.
I would like to oppose the motion to adjourn, for a reason. I accept that it is not possible to deal with the Bill that should have been and that we anticipated having before us this evening. I accept also that it may not be possible for technical reasons to take the matter of the statements on the current crisis in the Middle East; but I do not fully accept that the business of the Seanad should be so completely directed by forces outside Seanad Éireann itself. This is another classic illustration of the fact that this is happening.
There are other matters that could appropriately be dicussed today, and some of them are completely uncontroversial. For example, on the Order Paper of today, there is the Interpretation (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 1989, which the Taoiseach himself indicated some time ago was necessary. In particular I would like to move an amendment to the proposed non-Order of Business, if that is technically possible, that instead of adjourning we should take item No. 31 on the Order Paper, which the House knows I have a particular interest in. The reason — I am confining myself strictly to the Order of Business — that I feel it appropriate that it should be taken today is that it deals with the conferring of honorary citizenship of Ireland on Raoul Wallenburg and yesterday reports emanating from Moscow indicated clearly that there is a strong possibility that Wallenburg is alive. I brought this to the attention of the House, and the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Calleary, initially was inclined to be swayed by the Russian Government's line on this matter but subsequently appeared to be persuaded——
I want to point out to everybody that the Senator has the opportunity now if he wishes to take it — and it appears he is taking it — to speak on the motion to adjourn. That is the position and every Member who speaks and concludes cannot speak again.
I will not be tedious with the House, I hope. I am sure the House will agree with me that there would be a very general feeling that Wallenburg is a most extraordinary man. This would be an appropriate day on which to do what I have proposed; but, in the light of the release of Brian Keenan, I will leave it with the House. However, I am proposing an amendment to the Order of Business that instead of adjourning we take item No. 31:
That Seanad Éireann requests the Government to consider conferring honorary citizenship upon Raoul Wallenburg in recognition of his outstanding service to humanity,
particularly in the light of the information yesterday that he is probably still alive. That came from the Russian Government.
I accept it is not feasible for us to debate the Companies (Amendment) Bill which is presently going through the Dáil. I do wish we could have found a way to debate the Middle East question, which for the most part would not be controversial. It would provide what I would consider to be a beneficial utilisation of time and resources. It seems to me to be quite ridiculous that Seanad Éireann meets so that it can decide to adjourn there and then. That is bizarre and we will certainly need to look very carefully at the procedures which allow that type of situation to occur.
I formally second Senator Norris's amendment. I wish, now that we are all here, certainly that all the Members of the Government benches are here, under the new discipline it seems——
(Interruptions.)
It is a pity that the Companies Bill was not passed, first of all, by the Dáil and, secondly, by the Seanad in the last session of both Houses. If that Bill had not been languishing in various committees for three years we would not have to be here for an emergency session. I think it might be appropriate that we consider that both the Seanad and the Dáil should look once again at their methods of passing legislation and look at the length of the holiday which we insist on taking. If we had not taken such a long holiday the Companies Bill would have already gone through the Dáil and come back to this House.
We have from the Leader a proposal to adjourn the House. We have a proposal from Senator Norris that we take certain items from the Order of Business. The proposal by Senator Norris cannot be taken on the grounds that it is not an amendment to the motion as proposed by the Leader of the House, and consequently the motion before the House is the one that I now propose to take.
Question: "That the House do now adjourn until 10.30 a.m. tomorrow" put and declared carried.
The Seanad adjourned at 6.15 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 29 August 1990.