TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 13 °C Friday 24 May, 2013

TDs won’t get to vote on Sinn Féin’s abortion motion. Here’s why

Dáil procedures mean a minister can almost unilaterally replace an opposition motion with one more favourable to the government.

Quirks in Dáil procedure mean TDs will never get to vote on Sinn Féin's abortion motion tomorrow - but rather on the government's amended version.
Quirks in Dáil procedure mean TDs will never get to vote on Sinn Féin's abortion motion tomorrow - but rather on the government's amended version.

ONE OF THE THORNIEST social issues in modern Ireland will be debated in the Dáil this week – for the second time in seven months – as Sinn Féin table a motion calling for immediate legislation on the X Case.

The motion follows the death in a Galway hospital last month of Savita Halappanavar, a 31-year-old who was denied a termination on the grounds that her unborn daughter still had a foetal heartbeat – meaning that even though Savita was miscarrying and the child would not survive, its life could not be ended.

The motion put to the Dáil by Sinn Féin – which will be debated tonight and tomorrow, before being put to a vote at 9pm tomorrow evening – expresses sympathy for Halappanavar’s death, and calls for the immediate publication of the Expert Group’s report on the A, B and C ruling.

Though there are internal questions over whether one of Sinn Féin’s most prominent TDs – Meath West’s Peadar Toibín – will vote for the motion, after breaking ranks and refusing to put his name to the motion, the reality of the Dáil is that his loyalty is not likely to be questioned.

This is because Dáil rules give government ministers almost unilateral power to suggest amendments to motions – which can radically change their content and turn them almost immediately from a motion criticising the government to a motion giving ministers their full backing.

This is best explained with an example. Let’s take last week’s motion from Fianna Fáil, which dealt with the backlog in processing grants for first-year college students, and which read as follows:

That Dáil Éireann:

agrees that:

— the new Student Universal Support Ireland central online system for processing student grants is failing abysmally to meet what is required for over 65,000 applications and this is causing undue hardship for third-level students awaiting payments; and

— sufficient extra staffing should be supplied immediately to correct this on-going problem so that student grants can be issued by Christmas;

recognises that third-level students are facing year-on-year increases in their registration fees which are unfair and unjust in light of a promised reduction in these fees; and

calls on the Government to:

— refrain from further cuts to the education budget and increases in third-level registration fees;
— ensure that all children who require Special Needs Assistants are provided with them;
— reinstate the Career Guidance Teacher provision; and
— preserve funding to Delivering Equality of Opportunity in Schools programme schools.

Dáil rules forbid any amendment to a motion which directly contradicts the original text.

Can’t contradict directly – so contradict indirectly

This is why, when opposition parties propose a motion of no confidence in a minister (as FF did in James Reilly last September) the motion isn’t replaced with one saying “The Dáil has confidence” – but rather something similar, such as “The Dáil commends James Reilly…”.

There were two amendments proposed to Fianna Fáil’s motion last week – each is outlined in the Dáil’s Supplementary Order Paper for last Tuesday.

Sinn Féin’s was tabled first, and proposed to change the entire wording of the motion (except the first three words), substituting in similar wording which agreed…

…that there  was  inadequate  provision  for the training  of staff  working in  a centralised authority  that  was  tasked  with  processing  in  the  region  of  66,000  student  grant applications to be assessed within a concentrated time frame

Then was tabled an amendment by the Minister for Education, Ruairí Quinn, which also deleted all but the first three words, and began:

notes that: the annual cost of attending college increased by over 950 per cent during Fianna Fáil’s time in office, from €190 in 1996/97 to €2,000 in 2011/12, effectively bringing to an end the era of free third-level education in Ireland

…and continued to comment on FF’s “disastrous economic management” before recognising that SUSI would “in time, ensure that students continue to receive payments directly to their bank accounts” in a timely way.

Which comes first?

So we have an original motion, and two amendments: the Sinn Féin one tabled first, and the Minister’s one tabled second.

As it happens, however, the order in which the amendments are submitted is irrelevant: wherever there are two overlapping and competing amendments proposed, as is the case here, the Dáil’s rules (its ‘standing orders’) dictate that the government’s one is taken first.

The logic behind this is relatively simple: there is no point in making TDs vote on a motion from an opposition party, because it will almost certainly be defeated.

Even if SF’s motion was passed – which would need the support of government parties to begin with – it would then be replaced almost immediately, because the government’s version would command the support of a majority of TDs and would then supersede the original changes.

Either way, an amendment is always considered before the original motion itself – which is standard practice in any legislative or deliberative body. Just like with a law, there is no point in voting on an original, and then voting immediately to change it: you consider which changes you want to make to the draft, and when you’re happy with the amended draft, you approve it.

Where procedure kicks in

Let’s go back to last week’s FF motion on grants.

As it happened last week, when the time came to vote, the Ceann Comhairle – as he is required to do, under the standing orders – asked TDs to vote on the government’s amendment first. It was carried by 78 votes to 45 – meaning the government’s amendment was passed.

Because the government had now amended the motion, and removed the words that Sinn Féin’s version planned to delete, Sinn Féin’s one could no longer be put – and so the Dáil proceeded to vote on the amended version, which (again) was passed by 77 votes to 45.

Similar circumstances will present themselves this week. Though the intent of Sinn Féin’s motion is to try and convince government backbenchers (particularly those in Labour) to break ranks and call for immediate legislation on X, the motion will never get far.

As long as the government proposes its own amendment, TDs will only ever vote on the amended format – which will be specifically worded so that the concerns of Labour pro-choice backbenchers and their pro-life Fine Gael counterparts are both assuaged.

And so, TDs will vote on the government’s amendment (in reality, a counter-motion saying ‘Dail Éireann supports the government’s actions’) before voting on the amended version. Sinn Féin’s motion, which asks TDs whether they want the government to immediately legislate for X, will never make it to a vote.

Read: Sinn Féin calls for all-party support for its X Case motion

More: McDonald: Parties should “do the right thing,” despite individual beliefs

Read next:

Comments (59 Comments)

  • This is why the idea that we have a separation of powers in this country is ridiculous. Because instead of a legislative, executive and judiciary, the legislative and executive are one and the same.

    Reply
    • Could not have put it better myself Ciara. The separation of powers (or lack thereof) is the main thing stifling meaningful political debate. When the current system is backed up with a rigid party whip system then you effectively have 3 people in the Dáil at present called Government, Government Junior Partner and Opposition. All votes end up 2 to 1!

      Reply
    • Exactly Eoin. The system of government we have currently – while voting them in is democratic, I don’t think that particular section can be faulted – the government, in particular the cabinet, is FAR too powerful. Just because the majority of people in the country (and with PR, it doesn’t have to be a majority of the country) give the government a mandate, does NOT mean that they should have total power over the control of parliamentary bills.

      Oh, Government.

      Reply
  • So basically the government will get whatever they decide, regardless of opposition?? That doesn’t sound very democratic now does it??

    Reply
  • We inherited this system from the House of Commons in London. It’s an almost identical model, which has diverged only slightly over the years.

    Reply
  • What is wrong with us as a supposedly democratic society when the personal views of our elected officials can affect the personal well being of any citizen in this state.

    Who gives and TD the right to push their personal views and deny choice to a private entity such, in this case an Irish citizen.

    Choice needs to be legislated for. It is immoral and unethical to push a certain creeds morality and ethics on an entire population.

    I am not pro choice or pro life I merely have the intelligence and cander to understand what is the right way to approach this social issue.

    TD’s are elected with a mandate to govern in a fair and ethical manner. Not legislating for choice, especially in such cases as this, is despicable. Any TD who promotes his/her personal view in lieu of common sense and ethics should be asked to step down.

    Reply
    • I agree just make sure you do not vote for anybody that puts their own beliefs before what is right, real people are more important than the invisible people after all we voted them in to look after our interests not personal interests

      Reply
  • Forget banana republic this is boomerang republic.

    Reply
    • Silly comment from Les Rock .. thanks to J.ie for explaining the Dáil’s standing orders. In EVERY SINGLE democratic, deliberative organisation from parliaments to GAA clubs an amendment to a motion is voted on BEFORE the motion itself. That some people cry foul suggests that we really don’t do a good enough job of basic political education in this country.

      Reply
  • TD’s won’t agree with ANYTHING SF will do.They still label them as terrorists deep down.

    Reply
  • I recall one of the FFG/Labour program for government pledges was to change the farce that is our Dail system. If FFG/Labour/FF go against the will of the people on this extremely serious topic, then i honestly believe they should be jailed.
    I hope the poor womans husband takes a case against the FFG/Labour/FF party’s for refusing to support the Bill proposed by Clare Daly earlier in the year. Anyone who votes against a Bill to save lives deserves to be imprisoned IMO.

    Reply
  • Well, this will come as a relief to Peadar Toibin since he can vote against the Govt’s Amendment in & the amended Bill, both with his party, thereby never having to break ranks & not losing the whip

    Reply
    • I’m sure you misspoke (or whatever the textual equivalent is) when you said the ‘amended Bill’ there, but you do remind me to point out something which I forgot in the main article:

      An opposition party can avoid all of this by instead choosing to use its time to table a Bill (as in, a draft piece of law) and not merely a motion. Because amendments cannot be taken during the first discussion on a Bill, members are required to vote simply Tá or Níl on whether they want to accept it.

      This is what happened with Clare Daly’s bill in April – Dáil rules don’t allow amendments, so it was a straightforward Yes or No vote which ended up being defeated by 20 votes to 111.

      A cynic would point out that if an opposition party really wanted to make a point, they’d use legislation to do it and not just a motion that will never be voted on.

      Reply
    • Gavan, I agree with your sentiment, but we know FF voted against the Clare Daly Bill first time out, so i am sure they will vote against any form of legislation to protect the health of the mother, if it comes even close to treading on their religeous efforts. FF Hypocrisy knows no bounds.

      Reply
    • @Cal1 – I never mentioned FF. In fact, I was actually wondering why SF had published a motion which would never be voted on, instead of actually tabling the legislation itself and forcing a vote.

      Maybe it was because Pearse Doherty is on the record as opposing any abortion legislation?

      Reply
    • Thanks for that Gavan … the responses so far on this thread suggest that J.ie should do more “Democracy 101″ articles. Another likely reason why SF tabled a motion they knew would be amended rather than a bill, was that someone might point out that the same confusion at to medical care for a woman facing a life-threatening pregnancy exists in Northern Ireland. If SF tabled a bill in this country’s parliament, someone might reasonably ask why they haven’t tabled just such a bill in the NI Assembly where they are in government. But I guess it’s just easier for SF to jump on a bandwagon saying one thing to people up North and the complete opposite to people in this republic.

      Reply
    • Because legislation would be rejected on the same grounds Clare Daly’s Bill was and also require a considerable amount of work to put together and ensure it was as acceptable as possible.

      Reply
    • That’s sound logic, but in practice the government can always accept an imperfect Bill if it agrees with its general substance.

      In 2010, Senator Feargal Quinn introduced his Construction Contracts Bill to the Seanad. It demands that a contractor gives a minimum notice period to a sub-contractor if they intend not to pay for work performed (the idea being that it would stop subcontractors from getting burned if a builder collapses as a result of the fall in the construction industry). The Bill was imperfect, but the FF-Green government accepted its substance and helped to amend it at Committee Stage in the Seanad. The Bill passed the Seanad, but lapsed when the general election was called – but the FG-Labour coalition agreed that the legislation was now in pretty good shape and restored it to the order paper. I believe it’s now at Committee Stage in the Dáil too and will probably become law some time next year.

      My point is this: it’s fair enough if a government says that legislation is flawed, and it wants to reject it because it doesn’t achieve its desired function. But I’ve never heard a good argument against voting in favour of a Bill at Second Stage – a clear indication that the government supports the general idea of the Bill in the first place – and then helping to amend it later.

      There are 11 stages in the process of a Bill becoming an Act. TDs should never pretend that an imperfect bill should be rejected at the first opportunity, instead of using the Oireachtas process to improve legislation in exactly the way it was intended.

      Reply
    • @Oisin .. so you’re saying that Sinn Fein can’t be arsed to do the work necessary to present a bill in either Dáil Éireann or the Nothern Ireland Assembly. I could believe that. Just reinforces my point about the utter cynicism of SF in tabling a motion they know will be amended in the Dáil while failing utterly to take any action whatsoever in NI to provide the same legal clarity on abotion they are demanding in this country. Once again, SF saying one thing in the North and the complete opposite down here.

      Reply
    • @oisin, if that’s their approach to such a contentious matter, it doesn’t say much about their ability to govern. You have to admire their cynicism, they’re just like everyone else….

      Reply
    • Actually it says that they respect the need for this legislation to be done and to be done right. The government have a vastly more experienced group of drafters and the attorney general at their disposal. Clare Daly’s Bill was an excellent piece of legislation I though which was not written in the space of three days which was the amount of time Sinn Féin had. It will most likely be before the house again very soon and also be rejected. This is about pressure to act on the government. They will never accept an opposition bill or motion on this and thats just a reality we have to operate under.

      Reply
    • Ehhh… Yeah… Sure… “Misspoke”…(!) If SF’s ultimate aim is to shake loose a few backbenchers, wonder why they’re not pushing for a vote. Although, suppose in a straight up & down vote it’s likely that Toibin would be forced to vote against SF, thereby losing the Whip

      Reply
  • Government amendment is as follows;

    3. To delete all words after “Dáil Éireann” and substitute the following:
    “extends its deepest sympathy to the family of Ms. Savita Halappanavar and recognises the very strong feeling of the Irish people in the wake of her death; awaits the outcome of the investigation into Ms. Savita Halappanavar’s death to be chaired by Professor Sir Sabaratnam Arulkumaran;
    welcomes the submission to the Minister for Health of the Report of the Expert Group to address the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the A, B and C v. Ireland case and recognises that this Group was established on foot of a commitment given in the Programme for Government;
    notes that the Terms of Reference of the Expert Group were as follows:
    — to examine the A, B and C v. Ireland judgment of the European Court of Human Rights;
    — to elucidate its implications for the provision of health care services to pregnant women in Ireland; and
    — to recommend a series of options on how to implement the judgment taking into account the constitutional, legal, medical, and ethical considerations involved in the formulation of public policy in this area and the overriding need for speedy action;
    acknowledges the complexity and sensitivity of the issues involved and supports the Minister for Health’s decision to bring the Report to Government on Tuesday, 27th November and his recommendation that it be then published immediately; and agrees that the report of the Expert Group should be discussed in the Houses of the Oireachtas over the coming weeks in advance of a Government decision on the matter and that the Whips should meet to make the arrangements for such discussions at the earliest opportunity.” — An tAire Sláinte.

    Reply
  • these is just yet another sf attemog to jump on the populist bandwagon. if theg were truly serioua they wouldnt be proposing a mere motion( knowing it would be rejected and thus allowing them to point scaore) instead they would be proposing a bill on the issue.

    Reply
    • Populist bandwagon? Hardly. SF has supported legislating for X since 1992. They certainly have pro-life members and they risk losing them by doing this because it is the right thing to do. They also could have used this time for many other things in the run up to the budget but felt this was too important and that they needed to give leadership and keep the pressure on.

      Reply
    • if tbey wanted to show real leadership they would have tabled a bill rather than a motion. they know for a fact that the motion wont be passed its just just populist crap yet again.

      Reply
    • if tbey wanted to show real leadership they would have tabled a bill rather than a motion. they know for a fact that the motion wont be passed its just just populist crap yet again.

      Reply
    • if tbey wanted to show real leadership they would have tabled a bill rather than a motion. they know for a fact that the motion wont be passed its just just populist crap yet again.

      Reply
    • if tbey wanted to show real leadership they would have tabled a bill rather than a motion. they know for a fact that the motion wont be passed its just just populist crap yet again.

      Reply
    • If Sinn Fein has been so consistent about abortion since 1992 why did Pearse Doherty give the Pro-Life campaign a written committment that he would oppose any legislation to that would make abortion available in Ireland. He did this during the 2010 Donegal South-West by-election which he won.

      It would seem that Sinn Fein TDs are not above talking out of both side of their mouths when it suits.

      Reply
  • What occurs to an Indian in Ireland should have no effect upon the Irish legal system. Similarly, an Irish person should have no influence on the legal system in India.

    Reply
    • Pani 20/11/12 #

      Is waking up under a rock everyday conducive to good posture?

      Reply
    • Randy, the Irish don’t have an influence here in India, unless one wishes to bribe a judge, police commissioner, state minister…. if you have money, all nations can influence the Indian legal process!!:-) guaranteed.

      Reply
    • As was said last night on the frontline last night , when similiar problems have happened to Irish women in Ireland they don’t get any publicity.

      Also if something in our legal system is wrong and someone, no matter where they come from, losses their life either directly or indirectly because of the wrong, then of course it should affect our legal system – it should change it.

      Reply
    • Part of that Joyce is that people who are more routed in ireland, who are catholic also have more to fear of speaking out on this issue. Praveen didn’t fear the parish church or Youth Defence so he spoke out.

      Reply
    • RP McMurphy

      I’m against Frankfurt School Cultural Marxism.

      If I was in a hospital in India suffering anaemia and I asked them to go out and kill the first cow they see on the street and make me a steak, that would be cultural imperialism.

      Irish culture and society should not be subverted by foreigners.

      Reply
    • What on earth does any of this have to do with the Frankfurt School?

      Reply
    • anaemia unlike septicaemia us unlikely to result in immediate death if left untreated. it isn’t cultural imperialism to ask for a life saving procedure. this affects Irish women as well.

      Reply
    • Dietrich Död

      Sinn Fein are Frankfurt School Cultural Marxists.

      Reply
    • From Wiki on Frankfurt School comment:

      According to Richard Lichtman, a social psychology professor at the Wright Institute, the Frankfurt School is “a convenient target that very few people really know anything about…. By grounding their critique in Marxism and using the Frankfurt School, [cultural conservatives] make it seem like it’s quite foreign to anything American [or Irish]. It takes on a mysterious cast and translates as an incomprehensible, anti-American [Or Irish] foreign movement that is only interested in undermining the U.S. [or Ireland]“. Lichtman says that the “idea being transmitted is that we are being infected from the outside.” [16] Lichtman’s critique parallels that of rhetorical critic Edwin Black who demonstrated how John Birch Society co-founder Robert Welch used a similar disease metaphor in his writings and speeches during the “Red scare” era of the 1950s and 60s.[17]
      The Southern Poverty Law Center describes Lind’s theory as “one that has been pushed since the mid-1990s by the Free Congress Foundation — the idea that a small group of German philosophers, known as the Frankfurt School, had devised a cultural form of Marxism that was aimed at subverting Western civilization”. The SPLC reports that this theory has been taken up by “a number of hate groups”.[18]

      Reply
    • [Irish] or [Ireland] inference added by me…

      Reply
    • Any event that occurs in Ireland ( excepting Embassy staff in certain cases ) is under Irish jurisdiction. The nationality of the victim is irrelevant.

      Reply
    • If what happened to Savita is part of Irish culture, then Irish culture should be subverted as quickly as possible.

      Reply
    • MarMacRua

      I don’t take references to Wiki or the Southern Poverty Law centre seriously.

      I’m more interested in ex-US Presidential candidate Pat Buchanan and here is a copy from the original text produced by Catholic Insight:

      Intro-
      Western civilization at the present day is passing through a crisis which is essentially different from anything that has been previously experienced. Other societies in the past have changed their social institutions or their religious beliefs under the influence of external forces or the slow development of internal growth. But none, like our own, has ever consciously faced the prospect of a fundamental alteration of the beliefs and institutions on which the whole fabric of social life rests … Civilization is being uprooted from its foundations in nature and tradition and is being reconstituted in a new organisation which is as artificial and mechanical as a modern factory.

      http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/oldsite/article.asp?ID=13488

      Reply
    • censored

      Yuri Bezmenov must be laughing that his predictions came true. The ‘Useful Idiot’ even uses an apt username!

      Reply
  • Ireland should forget making decisions for its future – its like rearranging the deck-chairs on the Titanic.

    Diktator Merkel will decide what is best for us!

    Reply
    • Well said.Sadly.

      Reply
    • This old chestnut is a bit past it’s sell-by date, don’t you think? Even SF themselves have gone quiet with the “default or die” rhetoric.

      Reply
    • John Conniffe

      It’ll be over when either the PIIGS have re-paid or several civil insurrections in those nations change the EUSSR.

      Reply
    • With regards Ireland, it’s a fairly safe bet it will be the former, considering there’s now no political party opposed to the bailout. Any country that can squeeze enough money out to pay will pay. Not that this is a cause to celebrate, but it’s definitely the lesser of two evils. We’re ironically far enough away from widespread civil breakdown and violence that people entertain the notion that total economic collapse and the hell that would go with it is not immediately dismissed. Anger at political mismanagement is not enough of a reason to send us back to the 1950s.

      Reply

Add New Comment