It is proposed to take Nos. 2, 1 and 3. In order to take No. 2 we shall have to comply with Standing Orders by having a resolution to that effect, and I move that, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Standing Orders relating to public business, the Social Welfare Bill, 1970, shall be taken today.
Order of Business.
I object most strongly to this whole procedure. We adjourned the Seanad last evening and I certainly had a clear understanding that we were adjourning the Housing Bill debate until 10.30 this morning. I think that we are being made shuttlecocks in this House. I understand that we are going to be faced not only with these two important Bills which are now on the Order Paper but with nine Bills which the Seanad will have to complete between now and the conclusion of the session. We have just heard from you, Sir, a report that Dáil Éireann has accepted amendments which we have made to other Bills. Therefore, the Seanad has a role to play in relation to serious Bills if we have an opportunity of putting down amendments to them.
I should like to agree wholeheartedly with the remarks of Senator FitzGerald. I should like to ask the Leader of the House whether it is intended to take the remaining Stages of No. 1, the Housing Bill, today. While I appreciate the difficulties of the Leader of the House and of other people who are trying to arrange the Parliamentary business, it is most unfair to Members of this House to be asked suddenly to take up one of these important Bills that have been for a considerable length of time in the other House. As Senator FitzGerald has pointed out, we have just been notified of the other House agreeing to amendments put by us to Bills. There are two other measures at present tabled before the Dáil with amendments by the Seanad and this is proof that this House has a contribution to make. It is very difficult to make that contribution if we are suddenly told that the Social Welfare Bill has to be taken today and presumably we will be asked to go through all Stages today. It is virtually impossible in these circumstances to prepare amendments. I appreciate the difficulties which the Leader of the House is faced with, but I feel I must convey the disappointment and annoyance of the Members of this House about the way in which we have been treated both yesterday and today. Presumably it will be the same for the remaining few days of this session.
Might I say in reply to Senator Alexis FitzGerald that, first of all, he was aware of this arrangement last night.
This is untrue.
I explained last night the difficulties with which we were faced in regard to the Social Welfare Bill and the Housing Bill. I thought we had reached an agreement that we would take the Social Welfare Bill today—it has to become law in order that the payments may be made at the end of this month—and that we would take the Housing Bill also and complete it so that it could also become law and be returned to the Dáil not later than tomorrow.
With regard to Senator Boland's protest about the delay, I am quite sure that he is aware, as are all the Members of the House, that it is not the fault of myself or the people on this side of the House that these Bills have come in such quick succession to us at this time.
The Senator is aware that for the last couple of months there has been in the Dáil a filibuster which has prevented the normal passage of several Bills through the House.
The Senator may not criticise or discuss activities in the other House.
If I am to explain why we now find ourselves in the dilemma that the Social Welfare Bill is coming to us at this late stage I must explain that Bills were delayed deliberately in the Dáil for the last couple of months. Otherwise, we would not have had these Bills coming to us at the end of the year. Now that we have them we have to face up to the situation. I sought agreement last night from the Leader of the Opposition and I thought we had got agreement that we would take these Bills as they come along during the next week thus enabling us to complete the business before us. I agree completely with what Senator Boland has said. It has always been generally agreed that it is most unfair for this Seanad to be faced with the mountain of legislation at the end of the term, but that seems to be the natural order of things because of the way in which the Dáil does its business and by reason of the situation which obtains in regard to the Dáil going into recess. We have to wait for business from the Dáil. If the Dáil continues to work up to the end of July we will continue to be faced with situations like this. I agree thoroughly with Senator Boland and join with him in expressing the hope that some means will be found whereby we are not faced with a situation of this nature again.
Might I just say that at quite a late hour last night I was made aware of the agreement whereby I understood that the Committee and Final Stages of the Housing Bill would be taken today. This necessitated my spending several hours during the night attempting to prepare amendments to the Housing Bill. At the same time, I understood that it was also proposed to take No. 3, which is also a cumbersome Bill, because it was considered essential that this should be debated. I feel, however, that this will place a big burden on us and will make it very difficult for us to have a proper discussion on that Bill. I wonder if the Leader of the House could conceivably arrange the business so that we would not have these Bills following each other?
Is the House prepared to agree to the motion in respect of No. 2?
Why did business not follow in the order of the Order Paper?
The order of the Order Paper is not definitive. It is a matter for the House to decide the Order of Business for any particular day.
I thought that, if we could finish the Social Welfare Bill first, we would then have more time to complete the Housing Bill, because a number of speakers indicated their wish to speak on the Housing Bill.
Almost on the point of adjournment last night five or six speakers offered. Some of these, including Senator Alexis FitzGerald, came in this morning on the assumption that the debate would continue. This seemed logical.
Can the Leader of the House say if there is any possibility that No. 3 would not follow directly on No. 1?
In order to take No. 3 we would need a motion.
I am not optimistic enough to hope that we would reach No. 3 but I put it down so that, in the remote possibility of running short of speakers, we would not have time on our hands.
Is the Order of Business agreed?
It is not opposed.
I am falling over myself to facilitate the Leader of the House.