The Order of Business is
with the contributions of spokespersons on Second Stage not to exceed 15 minutes and those of all other Senators not to exceed ten minutes, and Senators may share time.
Throughout this session it has come to everybody's notice that the way we are doing business in both Houses is questionable. Time allowed for debates has been shortened and Report Stages have been taken immediately after Committee Stages. Opportunities to examine and re-examine Bills have not been given to us, especially with regard to No. 3, the Electoral (Amendment) Bill. This was guillotined in the Lower House and brought back here without affording us the opportunity to discuss it. In particular with regard to the Attorney General's advice regarding this issue, it should be re-examined. The Bill should not be rushed through in the way that it has been. We will have difficulty with the Order of Business today. […]
The Electoral (Amendment) Bill is on the Order of Business for today. Like any Seanad Bill, it is published on yellow paper. However, the Bill we are to discuss today, with the same title, is published in a different colour. The reason is very simple. It is because Article 22 of the Constitution states that a Bill initiated in Seanad Éireann , if amended in Dáil Éireann , shall be considered as a Bill initiated in Dáil Éireann . Any Bill that comes to us having been initiated in Dáil Éireann comes to us on Second Stage. Will the Leader recognise the constitutional imperative that we deal with this Bill today on Second Stage, like all other Bills initiated in the Dáil , which come to us on green paper?
As an amendment to the Order of Business, we should consider discussing No. 4 which reads:
That, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order 103, and implementing the imperative of the Constitution, Article 22.2.2º, which declares
A Bill initiated in Seanad Éireann , if amended in Dáil Éireann shall be considered as a Bill initiated in Dáil Éireann, the Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 2000 be considered at Second Stage.
In older versions of the Constitution, Article 22.2.2º may be Article 20.2.2º. The motion is in the name of the Independent Senators. In deference to the Constitution…
Is Senator O'Toole moving that as an amendment to the Order of Business?
I move amendment No. 1, that No. 4 be taken before No. 1. It should be accepted without a division of the House and without argument or rancour. The Constitution must be recognised in spite of anything that might be in our Standing Orders. We have a responsibility to ensure the issue is addressed by the Supreme Court to see if we are out of kilter with the Constitution.
Will the Leader either accept my amendment to the Order of Business or defer the Electoral (Amendment) Bill until we receive the view of the Attorney General on the matter? I am referring only to procedural matters, not the Bill per se. I am not discussing the Bill for the moment, merely the process and procedure. This is how we should conduct our business. I ask the Cathaoirleach to take an interest in the matter because it is fundamental to the way we do our business and on that basis it makes a great deal of sense. The matter is not urgent and I ask that we defer dealing with it until we get a complete ruling. […]
I move amendment No. 2 to the Order of Business, to delete No. 3 from the Order Paper. It is outrageous that we are expected to deal with Report Stage of a Bill which comes before this House after substantial changes were made to it in the other House. It has effectively become a Dáil Bill, yet we have to deal with it today in a very short time. That is not acceptable. There are serious constitutional and policy issues at stake. The issue has dominated the media since its introduction in the Dáil and appears to have arisen purely because the director of elections in Tipperary South wanted a scapegoat for Fianna Fáil's poor electoral performance.
Senator Costello is now becoming involved (Interruptions.)
The reason the party performed so badly was because the people of Tipperary South (Interruptions).
Order. Senator Costello is now becoming involved in the subject matter of the Bill he is referring to.
I was merely explaining some of the reasons for deleting the matter from the Order of Business today, which is the only proper way of dealing with it. Even if we proceed to Second Stage, we will not have time to deal with it. The proper course of action is to take it off the Order Paper and present it in the autumn. I do not see the reason this Government is pressing ahead helter-skelter with a matter which was not an issue for the Government when the Bill was introduced. Now it must be pushed through the House in a single day. I propose its deletion from the Order of Business.
I am not sure if Senator O'Toole's motion covers what I wish to raise on No. 4. If not, I propose we suspend Standing Order 103 under Standing Order 143(2), which allows a matter of necessity to be introduced. Rather than accepting that all the other Stages have been dealt with, and that this is a Dáil Bill coming here on Report Stage, I want it to be treated as a new Bill through the suspension of Standing Order 143(2).
It is not clear to me what Senator Costello wants to do.
Standing Order 143(1) 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.
Standing Order 143(2) states:
Provided that in cases of necessity, of which the Cathaoirleach shall be the judge, any Standing Order or Orders may be suspended upon motion made without notice. If such motion be opposed, the Cathaoirleach shall permit an explanatory statement from the member who moves it and a statement from a member who opposes it, before he puts the question thereon.
I propose that, under that Standing Order, we suspend Standing Order 103, which states:
A Bill which has been initiated in the Seanad and amended by the Dáil shall, after its receipt back from the Dáil be deemed to have passed its First, Second and Third Stages in the Seanad and shall be placed on the Order Paper for its Fourth Stage.
That is the substance of Senator O'Toole's motion. Senator O'Toole's motion is that the Bill be considered on Second Stage.
I was not clear because there was not a reference to suspension of a Standing Order.
Senator O'Toole's
motion
begins with the words,
That, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order 103
. That is the substance of Senator O'Toole's
motion.
I will be supporting that as a fall back position. The simplest way of dealing with this matter is to remove it from the Order Paper, avoid further controversy and let us deal with the matter in a proper parliamentary sense. Matters of this nature are best dealt with by consultation between the Government and Opposition parties coming to a reasonable understanding. That is not possible because there has been no consultation. The matter will be dealt with in a single sitting as the Leader has proposed. The Bill is substantially different from the Bill which entered this House.
I support, but do not second, Senator O'Toole's motion. The motion will be seconded by Senator Quinn. I will propose a motion which might solve the problems which the Leader will encounter today. I move:
That Standing Orders be suspended for today's sitting so that an invitation can be issued to the Attorney General to address the House on the issue of Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 2001.
This motion will be seconded by Senator Norris.
It appears to me that Senator Ross's motion for the suspension of Standing Orders is in order, under Standing Order 143. Is the motion opposed?
Yes. The motion is being opposed.
Under Standing Order 143, Senator Ross may make an explanatory statement to the House, setting out why he proposes the suspension of Standing Orders for this purpose.
It is obvious that this will be a difficult and controversial day for the Seanad. I propose this motion because serious constitutional issues are involved in this Bill. Senator O'Toole has already raised one, to which there appears to be no obvious answer. There is also a serious constitutional issue which has, apparently, been addressed by the Attorney General himself and it appears that the Attorney General's advice has been ignored by the Government.
There is provision in Standing Orders for the Attorney General to address this House. It will be absurd if the Attorney General has found the Bill to be unconstitutional, the Government rams it through, it then goes to the Supreme Court and we do not have the benefit of the Attorney General's advice. We need to fulfil our obligations to hear the best possible legal advice on this Bill.
I do not need to point out to the House that the Bill and this issue were not debated in their entirety in the Dáil. The issue was not debated at all in the Dáil.
There is a convention that we do not comment in this House on how the Dáil does its business. We do our business in this House in our own way.
I agree absolutely, a Chathaoirligh. That is particularly why we should show that this House takes the Attorney General's advice seriously and that we value that advice. There is no point in having an Attorney General if his advice is ignored. It appears that, even if we do not discuss the issue of how the Dáil conducts its business, how the Cabinet conducts its business is a matter for this House. The Cabinet's conduct of its business on this issue is questionable. It appears that all members of the Cabinet, including both parties in Government, have ignored the Attorney General's advice. If we go ahead with this Bill today and it is found by the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional, we will have neglected our duty by not listening to the Attorney General.
Senator Cassidy, as Leader of the House and the opposer of the motion, is allowed to make a statement of explanation.
Having considered this motion, we are opposing it on this side of the House. All the points raised by Senators can be made on Report Stage. That has been normal practice and it should apply today.
Question put. […] Question declared lost. […]
I second Senator O'Toole's motion No. 4. A Member on the other side of the House talked about having a debate on politics because of the bad name politicians and politics are receiving. If politics has a bad name, it is because of the behaviour of politicians. I am not speaking of this House particularly, but new legislation has been allowed to go through without being debated. It is essential that we have a Second Stage debate on this Bill. If we do not, we will find that legislation will be passed without debate. We will have no one to blame but ourselves if we do not succeed in having a debate on this. […]
I support the views of Senators Coogan, O'Toole and Ross, and particularly the views of Senator O'Toole as enshrined in motion No. 4. If there is nothing else in the Constitution to overrule it, the motion presents a solid case to have the Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 2000, considered on Second Stage. I cannot think of anything to overrule it.
While I appreciate that there has been a division and that matter has been ruled on, it would be very foolish of this House to proceed without the advice of the Attorney General. Will the Leader tell the House if the Attorney General's advice will be available to the House prior to proceeding to the debate? This matter was last raised in 1991. The then Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Pádraig Flynn, has stated publicly that he did seek advice from the then Attorney General. He has said he was advised to proceed with extreme caution and the matter was dropped.
As legislators we have a duty to ensure that we have the best advice available to us. I have no doubt that the best advice would come from the Attorney General. I have great faith and confidence in his judgment. I urge the Leader that we should not proceed unless we have that advice.
I also want to raise the issue of post offices and sub-post offices, a matter I raised last week and many times previously and about which there is serious concern in rural areas. A debate was promised but it has not been delivered. I would like an update from the Leader on that.
Senator O'Toole has raised a very important constitutional point, and I support him. Has the Leader contacted the Attorney General's office to get a view on this? If he has, will that view be made known to the House? If this is the case, why is he opposing Senator Ross's request that the Attorney General be called to the House?
We cannot debate Senator Ross's motion proposing a suspension of Standing Orders for today's sitting. That has been disposed of.
It is very important that this House be given the advice of the Attorney General. It seems quite extraordinary that the Government should be given the advice of the Attorney General, turn its back on it and then deny this House that advice when we have a debate on the matter. I know we are not supposed to discuss the business of the Dáil, but the way in which business was conducted there materially affects the nature of the Bill which is now before this House.
I have already ruled on this question.
But the point I want to make…
The Dáil conducts its business and we conduct ours. We do not comment on the manner in which the Dáil does its business.
If this House does not have the fullest possible advice and discussion on this Bill then it will have been inadequately discussed. I was rather surprised to hear Fintan O'Toole, a distinguished and shrewd political analyst, say on Questions & Answers last night that the Bill had been passed by the Oireachtas and was now on its way to being law. It has not because it has not been discussed by the House, but it shows the effect this rubber stamping is having on political life when someone like that can assume the Bill has been passed. […]
I second Senator Costello's amendment to the Order of Business for reasons which are obvious to us all at this stage, and I support the cogent arguments made on this side of the House about the debate on the Electoral (Amendment) Bill. I remind the Leader, because he clearly needs it, that we are Members of an independent House and that we decide how we conduct our business. I also remind him of one of our fundamental functions, which is to conduct an increased and broader examination of legislation, especially that coming from the other House. It is clear the Electoral (Amendment) Bill is fundamentally different legislation to what we sent to the other House for consideration a number of weeks ago. The Leader must take that into account and exercise his function in that regard.
If we accept the Order of Business as presented, we will undermine fundamentally our role as Senators and the role of Seanad Éireann , roles granted by the Constitution and which we are expected to fulfil by those who elected us to this House. The manner in which we conduct our business today will be viewed very seriously by all those who observe it. The amendment from the Dáil is also being viewed very seriously by the public, and that will continue to be the case. I urge the Leader of the House, therefore, to take on board those views and accept the amendment we are tabling in a positive and constructive fashion. […]
I support Senator O'Toole's amendment which raises an important constitutional issue, not just on this Bill but on many other Bills which have come back to this House from the Dáil. […]
Senators Coogan, O'Toole, Costello, Quinn, Norris and Burke expressed concern about No. 3 and Senator O'Toole expressed concern about No. 4. Under Article 15 of the Constitution each House shall make its own rules. Standing Order 103 provides that a Seanad Bill amended by the Dáil shall be placed on the Order Paper for Report Stage. […]
There are three amendments proposed to the Order of Business and I will deal with them in the order in which they were proposed. Amendment No. 1 is in the name of Senator O'Toole and it proposes that No. 4 be taken before No. 3. Is the amendment being pressed?
Do I understand the Leader to say that the advice of the Attorney General's office is that the House is entitled to ignore and undermine the Constitution, despite the fact that the Constitution clearly states…
The Leader has replied. The Leader did not make that statement.
I feel I have a duty to oppose this. I will be opposing it and I will also be challenging…
Is the amendment being pressed?
The amendment is being pressed.
Amendment put. […] Amendment declared lost.
Senator Costello has moved an amendment to the Order of Business, that No. 3 be deleted. Is the amendment being pressed?
Yes.
Amendment put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 17; Níl, 25. […] Amendment declared lost.
[…]
Question put: That the Order of Business be agreed to. […] Question declared carried.
This morning when Senators Coogan, O'Toole, Norris, Costello and others made arguments similar to that put forward by Senator Manning, I replied that all these points could be made during the debate on Report and Final Stages. There will be no guillotine. Members may speak for as long as they wish and all views may be expressed. There has never been a guillotine in this House under my leadership and there will not be one today. […]
I would like to see the House debating this issue rather than to-ing and fro-ing with votes, as we have done today. We will stay for as long as this matter takes and if it takes until next week I do not mind. There will be no guillotine or stifling of debate. We are here to listen and to debate and pass legislation.
(No debate on electronic voting took place on this day; debate concentrated on the opinion-poll ban in section 59.)