Rónán Mullen (Independent)

I was impressed with and agree with the essential point made by Senator Coffey on the Dog Breeding Establishments Bill. I participated in the debate on this Bill in the Seanad with great interest and tabled a number of amendments. What struck me at a the time was that although Members had different views on the various amendments, there was an intense debate. I formed the impression that the arguments were not heard in respect of the content of the aforementioned amendments. Were it to now turn out that similar amendments will be accepted for political pragmatic reasons when the matter comes before the Dáil, it would reflect badly on the Government's commitment to engage with this House. The Legislature has a job to do, which is to scrutinise legislation and to make amendments. Members deserve to have such amendments considered on their merits. It will look bad if a different attitude is adopted simply for political pragmatic reasons. While I do not wish to prejudge this because those amendments remain unseen, it appears somewhat ominous.

On the Civil Partnership Bill, there have been a number of calls for a free vote on this issue, precisely because of its significance and importance as a cultural and moral issue about which many good people have different views. However, I ask the Leader whether he also will give a commitment to there being a full and open debate on Second Stage on this Bill. Time limits should not be imposed on people's contributions on an issue of such significance. I also ask the Leader whether a guillotine will be imposed on Committee and Remaining Stages of this Bill. I sincerely hope there will not be because this Bill pertains to a highly important issue. It is evident that it is of concern to many people with different points of view. However, all amendments and all sections must be considered in full.

I do not like the possibility that this Bill might be before the Seanad at a stage where, if amendments are to be included in the Upper House, the Dáil will not sit to consider such amendments. I cannot discern how this conveys any kind of respect for the legislative process. Once the Dáil has risen for the summer, the most that should be considered in the Seanad are fiddly, relatively unimportant legislative items. I refer to matters about which no great injustice would be done to the political process were amendments not accepted in the Seanad because the Dáil was not sitting. However, on an issue as important as the Civil Partnership Bill, it must be the case that there is full openness in the other House to the possibility that amendments may be accepted in this House. I would be grateful for a response from the Leader on this.