It is proposed to take Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 in that order. It is proposed to adjourn for tea from 5.30 to 6.30. In regard to the previous agreement reached with the Leader of the Opposition, the debate on No. 2 will depend on the contributors offering. No closure time applies to No. 2. Regarding No. 4, this matter will be dealt with in the normal manner in which a Bill is dealt with. The time constraints that apply to a Private Members' motion will not apply so there will be an open debate on No. 4.
Order of Business.
I would like to ask a question about No. 3. The Independent group are entitled to put down a motion. It is their turn to have a motion debated today. They have used that time to bring in a Bill. I am not objecting in any way to their Bill. We are allowed three hours to discuss a motion. If a group change from a motion to a Bill Senators could talk about it for the next three months. I wonder if it is fair that a Bill can be brought in as a motion?
I would like to support the point raised by Senator Ryan. It seems to me, in my short time in this House, that it has been usual to raise in the one and a half hours at the end of business, matters appearing as motions on the Order Paper. It seems to me that today we are having two matters which are both Private Members' Bills. I would like to ask if that is usual or is that within Standing Orders?
As I am the proposer of No. 4, which Senator Ryan raised initially, perhaps I should answer this. First of all, there is obviously a precedent for this coming up in Private Members' time, which is No. 3, but what is far more important is that any objection to Private Member's time, especially Independent Members, bringing up a Bill in this time, must then raise the question, when can an Independent Member bring up a Bill at all? If the suggestion from Senator Durcan, and Senator W. Ryan is correct, there will be no time whatsoever and no opportunity whatsoever for anybody but the Government to put a Bill down in this House. That would be quite ridiculous.
Perhaps the Leader of the House could help us here. I do not really want to wave this poster around too long but it is a good indicator of the frustration of many people dealing with the homeless. If Private Member's legislation was dealt with in any sort of reasonable time we would have no problem, but there is a particular item, No. 3, which has been on the Order Paper of this House for two years now. If that had been dealt with in a reasonable time and if the Government had kept their promises of how they were dealing with that, we would have no problems. We would simply have one item of Private Members' legislation, which is hardly unreasonable.
I do not have a great deal of sympathy with Fianna Fáil. They are a major grouping and if they wish to introduce a mass of Private Members' legislation of a reforming nature they can have the full support of the Independent Members of the House. There is no point in quibbling because three of us in the back row here are able to produce more legislation than the entire membership of Fianna Fáil have done in the last three years. There is no point in quibbling with us about it, with respect, and I have voted with them on many occasions and will probably do so again.
That is as relevant as the roadways in Donegal.
The matter is a matter for the Order of Business of this House. The last major Private Members' legislation consisted of the Rape Bill and the Family Planning Bill. In both cases those matters were dealt with and disposed of in a reasonable period of time by anybody's standards, reasonable being about 12 months from the time they were first introduced. If there is a problem about too many Private Members' Bills on reforming issues from Independent Members, there are two reasons for that. One is that we are not dealing with them when they come up and, secondly, the Government do not seem to be able to introduce reforming legislation.
On a point of order, I raised the initial point to ensure that as a Member of this House I can approach the business of this House with some certainty. It seems to me that one is faced with the situation that there are two Bills. My understanding is that the time is not limited. They are two rather major Bills. One does not know whether either of them will come up tonight. My understanding was that normally motions were moved during the period for Private Members' time.
I have been trying to maintain a consistency in the way I have ordered the business of the House when that responsibility has fallen to me. Last week there was condemnation that we were not facilitating Private Members and that we were moving Government Bills, which to them were not important. I held then, and I still hold, that the function of this House, first of all, is to ensure that the Government are facilitated in their business of ordering Bills. That is why No. 1 is ordered as the first item today. I have no control — only the House has control — over how long that Bill will take. Item No. 2 is resuming a debate from last week dealing with the disadvantaged areas. I have ordered No. 3 in the hope that I will get to it today.
In fairness to Senator Brendan Ryan, he has had his Bill on the clár for some time. I gave a commitment that we would try to reach it as soon as possible, taking into account the preference of the Government's Bill. There is a precendent for having taken a Private Member's Bill in Private Members' time. This was done in the case of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Bill. The reason there is no time limit on the Bill is that I do not want to pre-judge what the House might decide to do with any particular Bill or how many people will be offering to speak on it. It would be very unfair if I put a time limit on No. 4. I am asking the House to agree — it is a matter for the House — that No. 4 would be given one and a half hours of the time allotted to Private Members time this evening and one and a half hours next week. That would at least give the Bill a chance to be debated. I have no idea when that Bill will be taken again or, indeed, the Housing (Homeless Persons) Bill, because it depends on the availability of a Minister and it also depends on what Stage the Bill will be at on any particular day. So taking items Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 is trying to be consistent. It is a fair Order or Business and a matter for the House to agree.
I would like to raise a very important matter on the Order of Business. I want to try to put a little bit of Northern Protestant backbone into the waverers as Mickey Mouse comes out to face the whip and the crozier. If the Family Planning Bill is not passed it will institutionalise Partition in the mind once and for all.
The Senator will get an opportunity to speak on the Family Planning Bill.
It is most important. The bishops have spoken their minds. I will speak mine.
It is completely out of order.
Order of Business agreed to.