It is proposed to take Nos. 1, 2, 5, 3 and 4, in that order. It is also proposed to suspend the House for tea from 5.30 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. That would take up to No. 4, at 6.30 p.m., or earlier if the business permits. Regarding item No. 2, I have had discussions with the Whips. The original Order would set aside only one and a half hours for the debate and there would not be a limit on speakers, which might do an injustice to the actual motion and the interest in it on both sides of the House. However, I am proposing that we have the normal time limit on non-Government motions. That would mean three hours overall debate. The proposer of the motion will have 30 minutes and each contributor will have 15 minutes, to give as many speakers as possible an opportunity to contribute to this motion in which many of us have an interest.
Order of Business.
I am glad the deputy Leader has decided that we should have an extension of time on the motion dealing with disadvantaged areas but there are a number of speakers who would wish to contribute. If you take the half hour for the Minister there are two and a half hours left. That confines the number of speakers again. Since the problem of disadvantaged areas has been around for a number of years, and there is not a county in Ireland in which meetings have not been held to discuss the problem, if we could have an open discussion without a time limit I do not think the people involved who are really interested would extend the debate too long. I appeal to the deputy Leader of the House to allow anybody who has a definite and genuine interest in this debate to speak. We are taking Nos. 1, 2, 5, 3 and 4. Since the debate on the motion will take place from 6.30 onwards is the deputy Leader of the House only ordering the Canals Bill today? What exactly is the situation? We have not got any details yet. Does the deputy Leader of the House expect a debate to take place on that item today?
With regard to No. 5, the Canals Bill, I ask that it would not be ordered for today. Due to an error the Canals Bill was not included in the Whip's notice to Senators on the Government side of the House. Those of us who have an interest in the Canals Bill are prepared but we were not aware that it was coming up today. This leaves us in a very awkward position.
Two winters have now passed since the Government promised legislation on homelessness. My Housing (Homeless Persons) Bill has been on the Order Paper for considerably in excess of those two winters and yet the Government have apparently decided that the Canals Bill must take precedence over it. Not even the Family Planning Bill, which the then Leader of the House would not even name, not to mention discuss, was postponed to the extent that my Homeless Persons Bill has been postponed. I find it singularly objectionable that after an extraordinary and inordinate Government delay we still do not have time to complete what is a relatively innocuous Bill. I have been uncharacteristically patient because I believed it was the proper way to do it. There are people who have suffered over two winters and anybody who wants to find out what it is like should read the report of the ad hoc committee on homelessness which is comprised of civil servants, not of people involved and who have suffered for two years waiting for a promise to be kept. The least that I can get in the form of a promise is a promise of time to complete quickly the Second Stage of this Bill so that we can talk realistically about doing something about homelessness. I am sick and tired of waiting and being put at the bottom of a list. I am really beginning to believe that the most disadvantaged area of all is the area of a private Member trying to introduce legislation in this House.
I would like to support what Senator McAuliffe-Ennis said in relation to the Canals Bill. Like Senator McAuliffe-Ennis, and I am sure others, I have a speech in preparation on this subject and without notice the deputy Leader of the House orders it for today. This is unprecedented and I would like to ensure that this measure will not be taken today. I was in possession when the Homeless Persons Bill was adjourned on the last occasion. I would be more than happy to continue on that Bill if the deputy Leader of the House sees fit to have it ordered instead today.
Would it be possible for the House to be given time today to discuss the impasse between the veterinary union, the Department of Agriculture and the Minister with regard to TB testing?
That is not in order.
The Senator should put down a motion.
There is machinery for dealing with such matters.
Is it possible to raise it under that machinery?
The Senator would have to give written notice of it.
I would like to make a plea that a compromise be reached as some of our friends on the other side of the House are anxious to put off discussion of the Canals Bill. I know that the canals are in need of attention but I do not suppose that they will deteriorate so much if the discussion is put off for a week. I feel we should take the Homeless Persons Bill instead of the Canals Bill. My understanding was, as I am sure was Senator Ryan's, that when we returned to this Bill before Christmas it was with a view to finishing off the Second Stage and that when Senator FitzGerald adjourned the debate we would come back to it rapidly. Rather than deal with the Canals Bill, 1985 today we should take the Housing (Homeless Persons) Bill, 1983 to try to finish Second Stage rather than have it drag on.
I would like to support both Senators Brendan Ryan and McGuinness in regard to taking the Housing (Homeless Persons) Bill, 1983 and deferring consideration of the Canals Bill, 1985.
I accept the point made by Senator McAuliffe-Ennis that notice was not circulated to Senators on this side of the House that the Canals Bill, 1985 would be taken today. It would be desirable to have it postponed, not indefinitely but for a short period, to enable Senators to be prepared for it. I share the sense of impatience and even frustration of Senator Ryan in relation to the Housing (Homeless Persons) Bill, 1983. This is a major proposal in the area of reform of our social legislation. It affects the position of the most needy and disadvantaged in our society. I feel it would have been possible for the House to order a more lengthy debate so that we could conclude the Second Stage of that Bill. I have been waiting, and I know a number of other Senators have also been waiting to get in on the debate on that Bill. As the business has been ordered today, it is unlikely that there will be any length of time for a debate even if the Canals Bill, 1985 is not ordered for today.
I would like to ask the deputy Leader of the House to ensure, perhaps on a Thursday, that time would be set aside for an extensive debate which would lead to a conclusion of Second Stage. The debate that has taken place has been extremely fragmented which is not a good way for this House to consider and examine this very serious social issue.
I would support the proposal of Senator McGuinness to substitute the Housing (Homeless Persons) Bill, 1983 for the Canals Bill, 1985 as the third item on the Order of Business in the hope that we can-have some debate on it this afternoon. I would ask the deputy Leader of the House to ensure we get a much better opportunity, perhaps on a second sitting day in the week, to have an extended debate and finalise the Second Stage of that Bill.
I wish to support the previous speaker and I would ask the deputy Leader of the House to readjust the Order of Business so that we can discuss the Housing (Homeless Persons) Bill, 1983. The subject of canals has been dormant for many years so I cannot see any urgency attached to it at this time. The Housing (Homeless Persons) Bill, 1983 deals with a very sensitive area regarding the housing of people who have no houses to live in, for example, those sleeping rough and unable to get proper housing. It would appear that after two years the Government have no intention whatever of bringing in such a Bill. For that reason I go along with the speakers in saying that two years is a long time to wait. The Order of Business should be readjusted to include the Housing (Homeless Persons) Bill, 1983 instead of the Canals Bill, 1985.
The Family Planning Bill is about to be published. Will it be introduced in this House or in the other House?
It never ceases to amaze me that Members of the House express views one day which are contrary to the ones they express on another day. I had opposition on the last day we were sitting from Senators B. Ryan and Lanigan that we were not taking enough Government legislation. Today I ordered two pieces of Government legislation and I am asked not to have one because Senators want Private Members' legislation. We cannot have it both ways. Whether we sit on Thursdays, Fridays or Sundays is a matter for agreement between the Whips. It is appropriate from Senator Robinson's comment that the Whips meet to see if there is a consensus of people who want to be in this House every day. It they are available on Thursdays then the Whips will certainly be able to consider it. There is no point in having this House sitting all day with just one or two people here devoting all their time to the legislation before them at the request of somebody else who at all times may not be available.
I would remind the Members — I do not want to lecture them on the Order of Business — that on the last day on which this House sat I ordered the Canals Bill for today, which meant that this was the earliest possible date on which we could take it. On the Adjournment of the House — there were not many Members present — I said that we would be taking the Second Stage of the Canals Bill today. I arranged that the Minister would be available if we reached it. That is the only way I can progress on the Order of Business on the basis of wanting to facilitate Senators with Government legislation and wanting to ensure that there is a Minister available when the legislation comes up on the monitor. I do not want to prejudge how long the Age of Majority Bill will take but if it takes ten minutes then this House will have no problem, but if it takes two or three hours — I cannot determine that — I want to make sure that every Member of the House will have the opportunity to make a contribution on any of the remaining Stages of that Bill. I cannot put a time limit on that. I am in the hands of the House as to how long any legislation will take.
Senator Lanigan's comment about not restricting the motion on the disadvantaged areas is a good one but I ask Senators to abide by the rules and that for the moment the House should adopt the normal procedure for non-Government legislation, that is three hours. If, at the end of that time, there are people who have not had an opportunity to speak then this House can determine that the time will be extended to facilitate them. I would like to facilitate Senators on that because it is a reasonable request. Other than that, how the business of this House runs or whether we get to any particular legislation is a matter for the Members. I must ensure that the Government legislation, which was promised, is ordered. It is then a matter for the House whether we get to it today or the next day.
I must remind Senator B. Ryan that the Fine Gael group in the House forfeited some of their Private Members' Time to try to facilitate his Bill. Everybody is concerned that it should progress as quickly as possible. There is no way that that Bill in its present form could be adopted by members of local authorities who have experience in the area of re-housing. Just to think that this is a lovely Bill and if it can be passed through this House it will settle all the problems of houses for homeless people might be irrelevent in view of the depth and complexity of this matter. The Government are aware of the complexity and have promised their own legislation. I have given a commitment to Senator Brendan Ryan that we will proceed in an orderly fashion to discuss this Bill and promote it as far as we can as a House of the Oireachtas. Then it is a matter for the Government to amend it, or accept it or bring their own Bill forward. I ordered it for today in the hope that we might reach it. There have been consultations between the Whips and between other people about the Order of Business. I did not decide it off the top of my head. I am sorry that Senator Ryan was not consulted. I cannot consult with every Member of the House, I can only consult with the leaders of the groups and the Ministers involved. That is why I have ordered the business as it is.
I asked a question. Where is the Family Planning Bill being taken?
When it is circulated the Senator will know from the colour of the paper in which House it will be taken.