Standing order 18 : Motion (RE: Prayer at Commencement of Sitting)

Standing Order 18: Motion

Thursday, 23 February 2012

Senator Ivana Bacik: I move:

“That the Report of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges on Standing Order 18: Prayer at Commencement of Sitting, be adopted, laid before the House and printed.”

Question put and agreed to.

Senator Ivana Bacik: I understand once the matter is agreed we can then have a debate, as the Leader said on the Order of Business. The debate can commence without a Minister present as it is on a report of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, CPP. I welcome the opportunity for the debate. It is the first time a debate has been held on a motion passed unanimously by the CPP.

It is quite unprecedented in the House, as the Leader tells me. It shows that we want to be open to debate. It was specifically requested by a Member who said he could not be here today. It is an historic occasion as we have not had a debate on the procedure at the commencement of proceedings in the House since November 1923. Even then there was a brief debate on the introduction of a prayer where formerly there had not been one. I will refer to the history in my contribution.

The Standing Order report, now that it has been passed, will add a new additional phrase into Standing Order 18 which currently provides for the prayer at commencements of sittings. It will provide that instead of simply having the prayer read, as it currently is, all Senators present shall stand for 30 seconds of silent reflection and then the prayer shall be read. It is adding a very short period of silent reflection to the period we currently have set aside for a specifically Christian prayer. I am speaking in favour of the report, which has been adopted unanimously by the CPP and the House. It is not what I would have wanted.

At the CPP last July I initiated a discussion on the prayer and the way in which we commence business. In my original submission to the committee I said I did not believe it was appropriate for a Christian prayer to be used to commence each sitting of the Seanad. I recommended that we replace the prayer with a short period of silent reflection, as is done in Dublin City Council, the Stormont Assembly, the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament.

I made the point to colleagues at the committee that although there has traditionally been a prayer at the commencement of the House of Commons and House of Lords, it is largely a factor of tradition and the particular status of the established church in that jurisdiction, the Church of England. I do not believe it is appropriate for us to follow that tradition.

In addition, when the Seanad was first instituted there was no prayer. It was a more recent development in November 1923 at the insistence of the Earl of Wicklow who was then a Senator. My preferred option was and remains that the Christian prayer be replaced with a short period of silent reflection to enable greater inclusively of all Members of different faiths and those who, like me, would not have faith.

Having canvassed this view at the CPP, we discussed it further. Senator Mullen provided some observations. One of his suggestions was that instead of replacing the prayer with period of silent reflection we would have a period of silent reflection in addition to the prayer at the beginning of each day's business. I took some time to consider the proposal. We discussed at the committee last week and I fully supported it as a very fair compromise that accommodates those of non-Christian or no faith, while retaining the existing prayer.

It is not my preferred option. I will still seek to persuade others to replace the prayer altogether. I look forward to hearing the views of others. Somewhat surprisingly, I find myself being accused of selling out by those who would like to see the prayer abolished. I am quite pleased, in a debate on religion, to find myself on the moderate middle ground. I see this change very much as a first step towards greater inclusivity. I will certainly continue to argue for an outright change but I am very happy that the compromise is fair.

The initiative I have taken has allowed us to debate the prayer for the first time since 1923. That, in itself, is interesting and marks some sort of progress. It has also led to a change in the prayer for the first time since 1923 and to recognition of members of a variety of faiths. It is a practical achievement and a step forward. It is a little like having an affirmation alongside a religious oath, as is provided for jurors and which we should provide for those taking up other offices, such as the office of the Presidency. President Michael D. Higgins, at his inauguration, introduced in an initiative whereby a humanist celebrant took part in the proceedings alongside officiators of organised religions. This is inclusive.

Let me refer to the history of the prayer. It is instructive to examine historical debates. In January 1923, the issue of a prayer in the Seanad was first broached by the Earl of Wicklow, who stated he would like to see a prayer commence proceedings. The then Cathaoirleach felt the most simple and dignified solution would be to have a moment's silence in which each Member could make what prayer he thought fit according to his own belief. The Cathaoirleach said it would otherwise be delicate and difficult to frame any sort of procedure that would receive universal acceptance. The Earl of Wicklow did not give up, however, and on 14 November 1923 he managed to have the relevant committee submit a prayer to the Seanad, which was agreed. The only debate was on whether it should be in both Irish and English or in Irish alone. Colleagues may be interested to know that Senator W. B. Yeats stated he would like the prayer to be read in Irish as soon as the majority of the Members know Irish. This might have taken some time.

It is also instructive to note that the Earl of Wicklow stated the words for the prayer were mainly suggested to him by a lay person but that he took them to the archbishops of Dublin, both Catholic and Protestant, who approved the wording. That is how the prayer came about. The wording changed subsequently and the prayer that was adopted in July 1932 by the Dáil is the one we use today in the Seanad. In November 1923, when the Seanad adopted the Earl of Wicklow's phrasing, the Dáil had not by then adopted a prayer. It was being recommended at the time.

The prayer is not with us since the beginning of the Seanad. I am very grateful to Atheist Ireland for pointing that out to me. In checking the record, I was interested to see that the issue of the prayer has been raised on a number of occasions by former colleagues, including Mr. Proinsias De Rossa, who spoke about a petty instance of discrimination. He objected to the prayer being specifically Christian, not to the fact that there was a prayer. He believed it was not in line with the thinking of a pluralist society. He outlined these beliefs in 1999. My colleague and friend, Senator Norris, has raised this matter on a number of occasions since, as have I. This is the first time we have had a debate on the prayer and the first time we are seeing a change to the proceedings to allow them to be more pluralist and inclusive. Therefore, I strongly welcome the introduction of what I believe to be a small and modest change which will, none the less, represent an important step forward in recognising the plurality of religious belief and non-religious belief in Ireland. I hope colleagues will embrace the change and that we will see people taking part in a dignified and respectable way in the 30 seconds of silence we will now have.

Senator Rónán Mullen: Thirty minutes would be better than what we had this morning.

Senator Ivana Bacik: It is unlikely we will ever have 30 minutes of silence. To incorporate 30 seconds of silence as part of the ritualistic commencement of proceedings is an important step forward in creating more tolerant and inclusive society. I will continue to try to persuade the House to move towards the method used in Stormont, Dublin City Council and other assemblies, where there is simply a silent period of reflection. This is the most inclusive method. What is proposed, however, is a very useful and valuable compromise. Its adoption by the Seanad provides not only a starting point for greater inclusivity in our parliamentary procedures, but also marks an initiative this House has taken that was not taken in the other House, although there have been moves towards change there. It shows we are capable of changing methods not only by having this debate, but also by making the change to procedures.

I very much welcome the report from the CPP and urge colleagues to embrace it and share their views thereon. We very much welcome their views. I urge them to take part in the 30 seconds of silence in a respectful and dignified way in recognition of the very many varieties of beliefs in this Chamber.