It is proposed to take Nos. 1 and 2 with the proviso that No. 2 will only be taken if No. 1 is disposed of before 4 p.m. this afternoon. For the information of Senators I would like to indicate that we will be taking next Wednesday the Report Stage of the Nurses Bill and also that I intend to give Government time to Motion No. 32, which is a motion to annual regulations made by the Minister for Health. Since this is time limited I intend to give Government time without in any way conceding there is a principle that such motions should be taken in Government time. It is an act of generosity. I should say that on Thursday of next week it is proposed to debate the motions on Developments in the EEC including the report of the Joint Committee on the Spinelli Draft Treaty. I am endeavouring to arrange on the following Thursday to take the Joint Committee report on Irish Shipping and on the Thursday after that the report on the Multifibre Agreement.
Order of Business.
There are a number of motions which refer to matters relating to the EC. Could they all be amalgamated into the one motion on Developments in the EEC, 1985, rather than continuing on and leaving some of them behind, which we might not reach for months. The developments in the EC is open ended enough to amalgamate all those reports and we could have a comprehensive debate.
This matter which has been exercising Senator Lanigan is one to which I gave a great deal of thought yesterday. I studied the Order Paper for a long time with this very point in view. There is a real difficulty here that if we try to bring everything into a general debate it will be a very diffused debate. Looking at some of the reports that are here from the EC, some of them are of tremendous importance.
Let me just take examples. No. 18 on our Order Paper, concerning the matter of the Vredeling Directive on Workers' Consultation and Information Rights, to my mind is an extremely important issue not just for Europe but it is a terribly important issue for us at any time and a vital issue under our present conditions of recession. I certainly would not like to see a discussion in regard to workers' rights of information get lost in a general debate and only surface from time to time. Equally, there is Motion No. 15 dealing with the Processing and Marketing of Agricultural Products — again a subject that I think could carry the weight of a full debate. If we had separate debates on these issues we would have a more meaningful debate, a more concerntrated debate, which I think would be helpful not only from the point of view of Senators wishing to influence a Minister but also helpful to the Minister.
For example, if we block them all together then we have the Minister for Foreign Affairs here, who can of course transmit what was said. If we were talking about the marketing of agricultural products we would like to have the Minister for Agriculture here. If we were talking about the Vredeling Directive we would like to have the Minister for Labour here to hear directly what Senators have to say.
I am still open on this point but, having considered it for quite some time yesterday, I feel that it would be better if we had a general debate. There are the important political developments. We can, of course, advert to other matters; but I think, if we set the stage with a general debate and then try to do a little minor bit of grouping in regard to the remainder, that we might deal, for example, with information, the Vredeling Directive and the Report in regard to the Fifth Company Law Directive. Those might be brought together in the one debate as being cognate. I am glad that Senator Lanigan raised the point. I certainly will be thinking about it further and having discussions about it. For the moment my mind would tend towards a general political and economic debate next week to set the general scene.
I generally concur with what the Leader of the House has stated but I just feel it would be helpful if we could bring forward the items which are likely to come up for decision within the EC in the next few months. The Senator mentioned that the Vredeling Directive is an important directive and that the Fifth Company Law Amendment is important, but they are highly unlikely to come before the EC or it is highly unlikely that in ten years' time the Vredeling Directive will be implemented.
The Senator should not be so pessimistic.
It is highly unlikely that the Fifth Company Law Amendment Directive will be implemented because of the problems associated with these directives from generally speaking, the bigger countries' point of view. I feel we must bring forward the items which are of great importance rather than items which are important but will not be of any significance in debate here in the next five months, ten months or ten years.
There is a Bill on some Order Paper dealing with legislation for the accession of Portugal and Spain. Would it be possible to widen the scope of that debate to take in one or two of the motions from the Joint Committee?
I would prefer that the legislation in regard to the accession of Spain and Portugal were dealt with on its own. It would be difficult to take it with a motion. It certainly can be considered. The legislation will be with us shortly.
I agree with what Senator Lanigan has said that we should bring forward those motions which are urgent. That is why, as I mentioned, we hope to take the report on the Multifibres Agreement out of its order of presentation. Certainly I intend to look at the order in which we will take these and try to take them in an order which represents urgency, if there is such a word as "urgency" in EC affairs. I will endeavour to arrange to have all these Joint Committee reports discussed but I would ask that Senators who wish to see this done to encourage their colleagues not to continually ask me not to sit on a Thursday.
Is it the intention to adjourn for lunch?
I suggest since we will be discussing the same matter all day we might adjourn for an hour and a half from 12.30 to 2 p.m.