In view of the decision the House has taken, it is proposed to take Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. Agreement has been reached to interrupt No. 2 at 4.30 p.m. and adjourn the Second Stage of that debate to another day. At 4.30 p.m. we would commence No. 3 and there is agreement that that could be completed by 6.30 p.m. Agreement has also been reached that the Minister would reply to that debate at 6.15 p.m., allowing him to wrap it up and have No. 3 agreed by 6.30 p.m. to allow the emergency resolution to take its course. We are not adjourning for tea.
Order of Business.
The Deputy Leader mentioned No. 4. I cannot see how we are going to fit that in.
No, I realise that.
On the Order of Business, I do not disagree with the Order of Business, but on item No. 3, if there has been agreement between the Whips that that matter should be taken effectively between 4.30 p.m. and 6.15 p.m. with the Minister replying at 6.15, did the Whips consider whether the House should contemplate a limit on the amount of time taken by any one speaker? Quite a number of us would like to contribute to that debate. I wonder if the Deputy Leader of the House has any proposal to make with regard to the limitation on time any individual speaker may take. If there is no limitation I can envisage a situation in which only two or three people would get an opportunity of expressing their views on this important matter. Therefore, I would ask the Deputy Leader of the House to consider whether each contribution should not exceed 15 minutes. The Minister is going to reply for 15 minutes. I think each other contribution should not exceed 15 minutes. In that case, if the Minister was not going to make a long statement at the start, we would have a little short of two hours. That would allow only seven speakers 15 minutes each. But at least if we imposed a maximum limit of 15 minutes, there would be the possibility that some of them would finish in less than 15 minutes and that eight, nine or ten people might get an opportunity of making a brief comment on this important matter.
I would like to inquire from you, or from the Deputy Leader of the House, on how many occasions in the past there has been a time limit on Government business in this House? I am not aware in the past of time limits. I would like to inquire as to who agreed to this? There are seven Members of this House who are not affiliated to any group and to my knowledge none of us has agreed to the Order of Business for today. Finally, I have risen on the best part of six occasions since Christmas to raise the question of item No. 5 and on each occasion I have been given more or less sweet words about how people were doing their best. But as item No. 5 has now slipped from being third on previous occasions and, indeed, second on some occasions, to being No. 5, I have to assume that, notwithstanding the obvious goodwill of Members of the Government parties, they are being prevented by the Government from discussing this Bill because of the lethargy of the Government and because of the succession of broken promises by the Government on the issue. I wish to propose an amendment on the Order of Business that item No. 5 should be taken as the second item today.
I would like to question the Order of Business in relation to the taking of No. 3 because to me and, indeed, to all of us, it is a very important measure. To limit it in the way suggested by the Deputy Leader of the House is not doing justice to this very important measure in our democracy. Further, I was given to understand that last week there was a great air of importance being given to item No. 2 and that we were to have the Taoiseach here today for this matter. We have not had the Taoiseach here during this session — indeed not since the Seanad was elected. I may be corrected on that, but I do not think he has been. Certainly he seldom pays a visit to this House. Many of us were looking forward to his coming here today.
With all due respect to the Minister of State, we see him pretty often in this House, and indeed he is very welcome on as many occasions as he can come here, but this was an occasion — and we have fought for a long time to be given the opportunity to introduce Bills here rather than have them introduced in the other House; we have now been given that opportunity — on which to have the Taoiseach introduce the Bill in this House. That would have been a further step to give more importance to the Seanad. My impression last week was that one of the reasons for us having to sit all night until almost sunrise the next morning was that the Taoiseach was coming here today. Now the Taoiseach is not available. Are we again, with respect to the Minister of State, down-grading this occasion of introducing this Bill into the House? It is a very important Bill. We have not had anything like it in our time in the Oireachtas. We should have been given the opportunity of having the Taoiseach here. We quite understand the Taoiseach is ill and cannot be here today, but could I ask the Deputy Leader of the House if this Bill could be left until a day when the Taoiseach would be available?
I am loath to defend the Taoiseach from the remarks of Senator McMahon, but that was fairly unreasonable as the Taoiseach is in his bed, as far as we know. I would like to support the remarks made by Senator Ryan on the Order of Business, and support his call for a debate on No. 5. I am rather nonplussed by the attitude of the Government to the Order of Business, which today particularly seems to me to be upside down. I would not in any way quarrel with the decision to have a debate on a matter of public urgency at 6.30 but we have had to abandon two matters on the Adjournment, one of which it was indicated would be taken this week. We have had to postpone again the extended debate on Nicaragua. It appears we are unable to take the Homeless Persons Bill. I would like a commitment from the Government either that the two Private Member's Bills, which have been on the Order Paper for a long time, will be taken today — they are serious Bills and it is time the Government took a stand on them instead of avoiding them — or that the Government gave time for them tomorrow or Tuesday next and disposed of them in that way. What I do not like is seeing the Government avoiding two Private Member's Bills.
Nonsense.
I would like to support the call of Senator McMahon for an extension of the time for the debate on the Local Elections (Postal Voting) (Amendment) Regulations. This is a serious business that comes in the year of an election. I can remember when I was a very innocent young person, almost a boy, contesting the local elections of 1974, and some of the abuses perpetrated at that time by the Fianna Fáil Party when postal voting was introduced in a limited form and unless we give the Bill our long and serious consideration I would not like——
Address the Chair.
(Interruptions.)
I will make my views known when the matter is being debated.
While I have the utmost sympathy for Senator Brendan Ryan in regard to his Bill, because he has mentioned it here on a number of occasions, somehow or other, I do not think, in view of the very important motion that we have before us today, on law and order in the west, that today would be the day to take that Bill because I do not think we would have time for it. I am suggesting to him that if he insists on taking it next week we will support him on the Order of Business. We would be slow to do so today on account of this other motion. As regards the local elections, I agreed with the Deputy Leader of the House that we take it from 4.30 to 6.30, but perhaps we made a mistake there, because two hours is a bit short for it. If we had the Archives Bill only for an hour, or until 3.30, and then went on to the postal voting motion we might get over it that way.
It has been said in connection with the Local Elections (Postal Voting) (Amendement) Regulations that it is a very important matter to us as indeed many of us will be heading into the local elections. We must make the point that it is extremely important because it is going to affect the voting rights of the disabled. Many of us in the Seanad have nominations from bodies representing disabled persons, indeed, I have one from the Multiple Sclerosis Association, one member of which conducted a campaign through the courts to be allowed her right to vote as a disabled person and it is for that reason that this legislation is of enormous significance and merits the attention of this House.
First of all, the suggestion of Senator O'Leary is an excellent one and it is a matter for the House to agree on the time limit that might be imposed on speakers. If there is a 15 minute time limit it will enable quite a lot of people to get involved in the debate.
It is being taken because of its urgency and this has been emphasised by Senator Bulbulia. This legislation was debated for only three and a half hours in the Dáil and in discussions with the main Opposition party it was agreed that two hours would be reasonable. Now Senator Ryan suggests that possibly we should have three hours. That is a matter for the House. I have no fixed views about it so long as we get it completed. We did reach agreement that the Minister could come in to reply at 6.15. Regarding No. 2, the National Archives Bill, it was the intention of the Taoiseach to be in the House to take this Bill but unfortunately he is ill with the 'flu and could not be with us. He intimated to me through his office that he wished the Bill to proceed and be taken by the Minister of State.
I am happy that he, as Taoiseach, wanted the Bill initiated here. It is because of his interest in the Bill that we are confining the debate to just the formal Second Reading, giving an opportunity to the Opposition and possibly to other speakers, to speak on it. After that, it will be the intention of the Taoiseach to be in the House for the full debate and to reply to it. That covers the point Senator McMahon raised. I did not arrange the Order of Business without consultation with the Taoiseach.
I have reminded Senator Ryan that it is the duty of this House, first of all, to look after Government business, which I am doing today. In the past we have ordered the Housing (Homeless Persons) Bill to be taken when possible. I totally refute the suggestion that there is any desire on the part of the Government not to take it or indeed not to reach completion of the Second Stage in spite of the anomalies — and I will not go into them because it would be out of order to do so. I deny that we do not want to take it. I would question also whether Senator Ryan considers that the House has already arrived at a decision to take an emergency resolution at 6.30 which I think even he would agree is important——
I resent the "even he."
The House has already decided to take the emergency motion.
(Interruptions.)
Senator Ryan will resume his seat.
Because of the imminence of the local elections it is important to extend postal voting to disabled people. It is a question of trying to decide the level of importance and the priorities and the Government must have priority in this House. In ordering the business, I am open to Senator Ryan's suggestion that possibly No. 2 would be completed at 3.30 instead of 4.30. That is a matter for the House to decide. If Senator Ryan formally proposes that we could then decide on Senator O'Leary's suggestion of 15 minutes per speaker.
An amendment has been proposed by Senator Brendan Ryan that item No. 5 be taken second in the Order of Business. Is the amendment seconded or withdrawn?
I am very grateful to Fianna Fáil for their offer of support next week. Therefore I will withdraw my amendment and I will give notice that I will be introducing a similar proposal next week.
Is the Order of Business agreed?
Except for time. I suggest that we take the National Archives Bill until 4 o'clock and then go on to the Local Elections (Postal Voting) Regulations at 4 o'clock.
Would I be under——
(Interruptions.)
Senator Ryan has proposed 4 p.m. We have already gone 20 minutes into the time. In fairness to the Bill which was ordered we should try to give it at least that much time.
Is 4 o'clock agreed?
Agreed.
Is Senator O'Leary proposing 15 minutes per speaker?
Yes, that each speaker speaks for not more than 15 minutes.
Just to put on the record, agreement apparently has been reached between Fianna Fáil and Senator Ryan about next week in regard to the Housing (Homeless Persons) Bill. I will be shortly moving the Combat Poverty Agency Bill, which is a Government Bill and would have precedence over the Housing Bill. I am giving no commitment that we will be able to take the Housing (Homeless Persons) Bill next week. I am glad that there is agreement on the other side of the House. Perhaps the Opposition might facilitate them, as the Leader said, with their time on their motion when it is available, but that is a matter for themselves.
Excuse me, I understand that Senator Brendan Ryan's proposal is not a motion now; it is a Bill. That has nothing to do with our Private Members' motion when it will come up. We are not giving any of our Private Members' time to anyone.
It does not do anything for the fluid working of this House that the Deputy Leader of the House would tend to be so sarcastic on a matter which, whether he agrees with it or not, affects many people in this country. We tend to support in principle — without going into the finer points of the Bill — what Senator Brendan Ryan is trying to achieve.
The Leader has replied to the debate. Is the 15 minutes time limit agreed?
Agreed.
Order of Business agreed to.