It is proposed to take Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 in that order. Regarding No. 2 a commitment was given by the Leader of the House that this would be given a priority position on the Order Paper. Unfortunately, the Department of Health was not in a position to respond to it today and the most important thing from the Leader's point of view was that the House would have an opportunity to discuss this within the statutory period of 21 sitting days. Today is the eight sitting day of the House so there is no urgency about the actual date for it to be taken. It will be taken as soon as possible, but definitely within the time to meet with the wishes of the movers of the motion, Senators Brendan Ryan and Catherine McGuinness. It is also proposed that we adjourn for tea from 5.30 p.m. to 6.30 p.m.
Order of Business.
There are different inconveniences involved in postponing a motion. One is that it is inconvenient for Members of this House and in my view when things are inconvenient for Members of this House, then the House should do its best to facilitate them. But when an undefined body called a Government department finds something inconvenient and one of the Houses of the Oireachtas reorganises its business in order to meet the convenience of an undefined body called the Department of Health, it seems that the sovereignty of Parliament, apart from any other inconvenience might be threatened.
Apart from the Department of Health being inconvenienced by the taking of this motion today, the people who have proposed and seconded the motion are considerably inconvenienced by it not being taken. I find it somewhat offensive that I am informed in good faith, when I inquire, that this motion is being taken today and then the first time I hear officially that it is not being taken is when I come in here to hear the Order of Business. Then I am told it is not because there is a problem with this House but because some undefined body, not a Member of this House and not answerable to this House, called the Department of Health, finds it inconvenient. Now, of course we have another 13 sitting days, but it would be very helpful to know when we are going to take it, because commitments that are entered into in good faith as I know they were, should always be honoured or, if they cannot be fulfilled, alternative commitments should be made and made with the same concern for people's convenience as seems to apply only to those unnamed persons in Government departments. I bitterly resent the manner in which this motion was brought on to the Order Paper, listed as the second item on the agenda and then apparently pretty casually dismissed because it would cause inconvenience to people who are not part of this House or Members of this House.
I would just like to join Senator Brendan Ryan in what he said about No. 2 on the agenda, particularly as I am well aware that the commitment to list the matter on the Order Paper was made in good faith by the Leader of the House, and there is no possible blame attached to him with regard to the fact that it was not taken. Also, it seems that it would have been convenient for the Minister himself to take it this afternoon, because the Minister is here to deal with the Nurses Bill.
Therefore, I feel it is not the Minister's convenience that is in question but the convenience of — as Senator Ryan says — unnamed other persons who, so far as I understand, did not become aware that this was listed until a late time, despite the fact that they were supplied with the information. I do not like to see motions which have been put down by Members of this House — certainly with much greater inconvenience to my colleague, Senator Ryan, than to myself but at the same time with inconvenience to Members of this House — removed from the Order Paper by what appears to be some kind of bureaucratic slip-up rather than any fault on the part of the Leader of the House or any inconvenience on the part of the Minister himself.
I agree with what my two colleagues have said; of course they are right. I want to ask the Leader of the House about a matter which I raised last week, Item No. 22. I pointed out last week that we, rather sanctimoniously, passed a motion condemning the hanging in South Africa two weeks ago. I asked the Leader of the House last week what plans this Government had for allowing time for a Bill which is on the Order Paper here to be discussed in this House, that is the Bill to abolish hanging. The Leader of the House said that he was in discussion with the Minister for Justice about this matter. I would like to know whether the Acting Leader of the House is defending the refusal of the Government to give time to the abolition of hanging in this country because it is the policy of his party and when he intends to give time to Item No. 22.
It is unusual for me to be getting up here and not criticising Ministers for their discourtesy to the House; it is refreshing to find that the discourtesy being shown here today has apparently been shown by officials. It does seem strange that since the Minister is in the House this particular matter could not be discussed because it does not seem to be a very controversial one. I am not too sure whether controversy could arise on it but nevertheless it is obviously something which is going to have many repercussions throughout the area of health for elderly people. Therefore I feel it could be discussed today, especially when it is proposed to take Items Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 on the Order Paper today. I cannot see how we can take Items Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 today. I would like to know, from the Leader of the House, what he means by taking those Items and having a break between 5.30 p.m. and 6.30 p.m. The Report Stage of the Nurses Bill is obviously going to take a certain amount of time. I cannot see that Item No. 3 will be disposed of in a very short time and obviously, Items Nos. 4, 5 and 6 will take a considerable time. I would like to know exactly what the time scale is. Are we going to continue with Item No. 6 before going to Items Nos. 4 and 5, since we have already started that discussion? What exactly is the time scale for today's business?
To put the record straight, it is a matter for the House to decide on the Order of Business. I have suggested it in the order announced at the beginning. One of the questions arising is the commitment of the Leader of the House to item No. 2. Far be it from me to defend the Public Service or a Department, particularly when the Minister is present, but I would like to put it on the record of the House that the Department were only aware of this resolution this morning. Where the communications breakdown was, I do not know. What I am suggesting is that if the Minister is to respond properly to this motion, he would have to be briefed. The motion is not specific in that it does not give reasons why the order requires to be annulled. Perhaps if this was communicated by the movers of this motion and if the Minister was in a position to respond to it at the end of the debate on the Nurses Bill, 1984 — I cannot determine how long that will take but if it were completed quickly and——
It may not.
It may not. It is the right of this House to discuss the legislation fully. If the Nurses Bill, 1984, is completed within a reasonable time and if we can have some communication from the movers of item No. 2 as to what area they are concerned about, then a proper briefing could possibly be available for the Minister at a later time during the day to enable him to take item No. 2. The Leader of the House in giving his commitment said he did not want it to be established as a principle or as a right to have it taken but he felt that the House would want to facilitate the Members within the statutory sitting days. There will still be ample time to do that. It does not remove the motion from the Order Paper. We would probably be in a position to take it tomorrow morning or, if the Senators could facilitate us, we could probably take this evening. That is a matter for the House.
With reference to Senator Lanigan's question, I have no idea how long any of these items will take. We will take them in the order I have announced them for today, as tomorrow's Order of Business could be different. With regard to item No. 22, the Leader of the House gave a commitment to Senator Ross last week that he would have discussions with the Minister for Justice with a view to finding out when it could be taken. I would like to apologise for the Leader who is absent through circumstances outside his control. I did not enter into any consultation with the Minister for Justice; the Leader of the House did and gave that commitment. I do not know what the response in that case is. The motion will be on the Order Paper and the matter can be raised again when the Leader of the House is present. The Senator can then find out what the response was to his discussions with the Minister for Justice.
I think the Order of Business as I have proposed it is not unreasonable. If Senators Ryan and McGuinness will communicate with me afterwards, once we have got into discussion on the Nurses Bill, then we can decide whether we are in a position to take item No. 2 later on today and then it would be a matter for the House to decide if this was all right.
Could I suggest that a definite date be fixed and that the matter be taken next Wednesday? We do see that it would make a great difference——
We cannot have any more discussion after the reply, but I am prepared to hear Senator Brendan Ryan.
Just on a point of information, and in defence of the officers of this House, I would like to say in reply to what Senator Ferris has said that my understanding is that the officers, in their normal course of duty, sent the proofs of the Order Paper in the ordinary way to the department and to say that the department only heard of it this morning is not quite exact and I would not like it to be thought that the officers of this House were at fault.
On the Order of Business, I wonder if the Leader of the House could tell us when item No. 21 will be taken, the Broadcasting and Wireless Telegraphy Bill, 1985, or if the Bill is being withdrawn?
On a point of information, may I ask the Acting Leader why we are not going to continue on with item No. 6 rather than start on item Nos. 4 and 5 which are related subjects and possibly could be taken together. We have started the Annual Report on the Ombudsman. Most of the items on the Order Paper within the last few months have been dealing with reports from committees or from various bodies. It would be much better if we could finish off the business on hand before heading into other areas.
There is a certain amount of heat generated in this Chamber verbally from time to time but I do not think there is any need for the waste of energy that is going on at present and for the past three weeks. The heat in this Chamber would drive anyone out of it; I am not talking about verbal heat.
I thought I had explained my position regarding the Order of Business. It is a matter for the House to agree to it or not. I think I am not unreasonable, as I have tried to facilitate Senators Ryan and McGuinness on item No. 2, and if they will communicate with me afterwards so that we can get a proper briefing we may be able to deal with it.
The other questions will not arise unless we complete the order I have suggested and then, of course, the questions raised by Senator Lanigan will come into play. He discussed with the Leader publicly last week the advisability of taking certain resolutions together. The Leader replied in detail as to why that could not be done; but a commitment was given by him that No. 4 was a matter of some urgency. This was raised by other Members, it was suggested that it should be taken and that is why it is on the Order Paper. It is a report from the Joint Committee on EC Legislation and it takes note of developments there. It is one in which a lot of Members have an interest and there are people prepared and ready to deal with it.
Regarding the matter raised by Senator Ellis, I suggest he consult with his own party to decide on the priority they want for any particular legislation. It is not withdrawn or otherwise. It is still on the Order Paper and will be ordered by the Government at the appropriate time.
Is the Order of Business agreed?
The question I raised with the Leader of the House was will it be taken this session.