It is proposed to take Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 in that order. I do not want to curtail discussion on No. 3 in any way but it is hoped to get to No. 4, which is a Private Member's Bill, shortly after 4 o'clock and certainly not later than 5 o'clock, so that we can give the proper three hours to the debate on it. For the information of the House I should like to say in regard to No. 4 that, following strong representations from the Labour Party group before lunch, and in consultation with my colleagues in Fine Gael, we have agreed not to move the amendment to No. 4. I take it that there will be agreement in the House on that. We will continue the discussion on the Second Stage of No. 4.
Order of Business.
I take it that the amendment is being withdrawn.
Yes.
That is not a split?
The Senator is quite right.
Senator Ferris said that the Housing (Homeless Persons) Bill will be debated for three hours. That applies to a motion. This is a Bill. Is the debate on the Bill confined to three hours also?
I should like to refer to a matter which was raised the last time the Seanad met. Senator Lanigan asked about the position of the Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities. On that occasion the Leader of the House, Senator Dooge, said he would inquire into it as a matter of urgency. Although it has its own staff and has a prior record of meeting, that Committee has not yet come together. I do not know whether the acting leader of the House would be able to inform the House as to whether there is any further development. That committee potentially could be dealing with one of the most important problems facing this country, the whole question of the super-levy and the financing of the budget of the Community. It has not met although the motion was passed in July last, together with the motions establishing the other committees. This is a very serious issue indeed because it has staff. It is one committee that has staff and it has not been able to meet.
To go back to the previous subject, I am delighted to welcome the decision of the Government not to proceed with the amendment to No. 4. This matter should be fully discussed and should be given a full Second Stage debate. Whatever about taking three hours, does this mean that we necessarily have to vote on Second Stage today, or can it carry on to next week? I was not aware of a three hour rule for a Bill. I just want to know whether there will necessarily be a vote on it this evening.
It would probably take me three hours to say all I have to say. Obviously there will be difficulties. What I really want to ask is about a person from Northern Ireland whose only crime that I could see was that he happened to wear a uniform. Last week he was pumped full of lead and brought to his death. We live next door to the police station in Bally-money. That man left at 8.30 p.m. and before he could get home he was dead.
I want to ask are the participants in these Anglo-Irish talks aware of the great urgency there should be in dealing with the Northern problem. If you lived in Northern Ireland you would realise that society is disintegrating around us. When I attend funerals of people I have known, when I see innocent people lifted from the streets, when I see total disintegration all around us, I indict both the London and Dublin political establishments for not giving this matter the urgency it deserves after 15 years — longer than the first and second World Wars, the Anglo-Irish war and the Civil War.
I have been very kind to the Senator but it has nothing to do with the Order of Business.
I wanted to ask the same question as Senator McGuinness. We will not necessarily have a vote on item No. 4 this afternoon, or do I misunderstand the acting leader of the House?
I want to get this clarified. The Order of Business is: Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. On the question of timing, the acting leader said he hoped to have Nos. 1, 2 and 3 finished before 4 o'clock. Is that right? I thought we had at least two hours left for the motion on the action plan for Irish. Then we have No. 4. I cannot see that we can confine No. 4 to three hours or any length of time. If we start Second Stage we will have to continue until Second Stage is finished. Then we have to take No. 5. Is it intended that we will finish at 8.30 or will we go on after 8.30? We agree with the Order of Business as it is, but the timing of that order is distinctly peculiar.
It is rather confusing and, subject to the reply from the acting leader of the House, you may have to allow further discussion.
I will deal with Senator Robinson's point first because it is a different point from the other subject. I know that the Leader of the House, Senator Dooge, has been trying to resolve the problem raised by Senator Robinson at the previous sitting. Up to today the matter has not been resolved. I am sorry I cannot be more helpful. It is certainly the desire of the Leader of the House to meet the wishes of the Seanad in regard to the EEC Committee. I know he is using his good offices to that effect. I am sorry that I cannot be more positive about it but certainly it is not our fault. Our office has been trying to have this matter dealt with speedily.
With regard to the other questions raised by Senator McGuinness, Senator Ryan, Senator Lanigan and other Senators, it was agreed with the mover of the Bill that today three hours would be allocated to the Bill. It does not necessarily mean that the Second Stage will conclude today. There is no intention on our part to curtail the discussion to three hours. There will be a three-hour debate today on the Second Stage. We will adjourn the debate after three hours and continue it on another day by agreement. On the question of whether we will have Nos. 1, 2 and 3 completed by 4 o'clock, I said that I did not want to curtail any speeches. It depends on who is offering to speak on No. 3. If we have not concluded the motion on the Irish language by 5 o'clock, in fairness to Senator Ryan we will take his Bill then and we can reorder No. 3. I had hoped from discussions I have had with various Senators that it could be completed.
There is agreement that there is no particular problem about No. 1. Because of my anxiety to clear the Order of Business today I have not mentioned anything about adjourning for tea. We will decide that later with the Whips and the leaders of the groups. I want to try to arrange the business in an orderly fashion so that Minister who will be responding to the Bills will have some idea of when I will want them to be available to the House and the movers of the motions will also have some idea about when their business will be taken. That was the only reason I suggested times. I hope there will be agreement that we will get to No. 4 on the Order Paper by 5 o'clock so that we can have a full three hour debate — with due regard to what Senator Ryan wants about which many of us are concerned. We want to try to facilitate this in every way possible on this side of the House.
What about Senator Robb and his suggestion to the acting leader of the House? Has he any comment to make on that matter?
I do not agree to the Order of Business in that way. Suppose the debate on the Bill does not start at 5 o'clock but at 6 o'clock and we take three hours on it. We will have gone on to 9 o'clock then. We have another Bill coming up later, No. 5 on the Order Paper. I suggest that we conclude the housing Bill not later than 8 o'clock.
I suggested starting on it not later than 5 o'clock so that it could be concluded not later than 8 o'clock.
This is a matter for the Whips. They can reach some agreement. Does Senator Ryan agree to that?
Yes.
Are we agreed that we start No. 4 at 5 o'clock?
I wonder could the acting leader of the House tell us if it is proposed to take No. 5 today? Does he propose to ram it through in a half hour by taking it at 8 o'clock?
I can assure the Senator that I do not intend to ram any legislation or any motion through this House. I have always been liberal in my attitude to people. It is my intention to finish the Order of Business today. If that means sitting late, I hope I will have the cooperation of all the Senators in doing so.
What about Senator Robb's suggestion?
Order of Business agreed to.