It is proposed today to take Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 as they appear on the Order Paper. As there are two hours remaining for debate on item No. 6 it is proposed that this should take place from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. to be preceded by a suspension of the sitting from 5 p.m. to 6 p.m. Between now and 5 p.m. we will take as much of Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 as can be covered. It is proposed that if any of those Bills has been commenced but not concluded at 5 p.m. for the sake of avoiding the strangling of business from week, to week it will in fact be completed tomorrow morning. Also, I understand that there is a small amending Courts Bill which it is necessary to pass into law very quickly. It is consequential arising from the extension of the County Borough of Galway and has to be passed urgently in order to allow the courts to operate in the city and county of Galway under the new dispensation. That Bill will, I understand, be received from the Dáil today. It is proposed also to take that tomorrow morning. The Seanad is sitting tomorrow morning at 10.30, going on until 5 p.m. The legislation having being disposed of it is proposed to take tomorrow items Nos. 7 and 8.
Order of Business.
Am I to gather from what the Leader of the House has said that there is a limitation being put on the completion of any of these Bills? He is suggesting that we meet tomorrow morning and conclude any business that has not been concluded today.
Sorry, no, commenced today but not concluded.
But it is not intended that we conclude them tomorrow?
May I make that absolutely clear? If, for example, we get on to No. 2 but not complete it the proposal is that we should resume it tomorrow. If the Seanad wishes to discuss that beyond 5 p.m. tomorrow evening it is perfectly at liberty to do so.
The only business being ordered for tomorrow is an extension of the business of today?
The legislation which commenced today, plus Courts Bill plus motions.
In regard to tomorrow, that we sit until we complete. Will we not agree?
No.
How about the next Stages? You are not suggesting that the next Stages of any of these Bills will come in either today or tomorrow?
No.
On the Courts Bill, if it is a matter of urgency that has to be dealt with I suggest that it be brought in immediately and we deal with it as No. 1.
Mr. O'Toole
When is it proposed to take Item No. 3?
Senators should keep to the Order of Business.
This is about the seventh or eighth time over the last 12 months that I have asked the Leader of the House when it is proposed to take No. 26. Over the last week we have seen some strong criticism from Bishop Comiskey in relation to this matter. We have also seen the ridiculous situation where family-run competitions on RTE television had to be withdrawn. These were being run for the pleasure of paid-up TV licence holders while we have, on the other hand, people who run unlicensed radio stations in competition with everyone and paying nobody. I know the Leader is genuine in all his replies but I must start questioning the reasons behind the Government decision in not bringing the matter into the House.
Just before Senator Dooge continues, anything I have said here is not a criticism of the Cathaoirleach, but the fact is that what we asked to put as a matter of urgency on the Adjournment was turned down. We asked for a debate on the closure of the hospitals; it was turned down. Last week and this week the two items taken on the Adjournment were single items from two Senators on the Government side and related to the same problem. You, a Chathaoirleach, by your decision have eliminated us from discussing the closures of these hospitals. In half an hour the Minister and the Member on the Adjournment dictates the amount of time to be taken. In future, if a decision is being made on the Adjournment, I ask that the Government side will not get the same opportunity to discuss matters of urgency as happened in the last fortnight. It is a disgrace.
I do not decide on politics who is to be on the Adjournment. I take the motions in the order they come to me. If you want to change that system, I am quite happy. I take the motions as they come in. I am not particular where they come from, whether they come from the Independent Members, the Government Members or the Opposition Members.
Sorry, that is not the point. The point is that two weeks in a row the same matter has been discussed. You had to decide on the matter to be discussed on an order of priority and you picked two motions, one last week and one this week, from the Government side which relate to the same matter and which gives the Minister the opportunity to come in and fool the public on what is happening in St. Dympna's in Carlow and St. Patrick's in Castlerea. We are not getting a chance to express our opinions on these matters and that is disgraceful. I am not talking politics on this one. In essence, I am talking about the ruling of the Chair, which has dictated over the past two weeks that we were not allowed to bring up the matter. We were voted out by the other side on a three-hour debate and then it comes up on the Adjournment. Next week again it may come up on a Government motion on the Adjournment. There is no opportunity for the Opposition to raise the matter at all.
That is not fair. The week before we had a motion on the Castlerea hospital. This week we have a motion on the Carlow hospital. Both of these motions were put in by individual Senators. I have taken them in the order in which they came to me. I am quite prepared to continue to do that unless somebody wants to change the system. To me it does not matter what party they come from. That is the situation and that is the way I am doing it.
May I just continue? Last week the Government benches voted against the discussion on the closure of Castlerea and Carlow hospitals and now they want a half hour Adjournment motion to discuss the closure of Castlerea hospital. The week before we asked for an Adjournment of the Seanad to discuss the closure of Castlerea and St. Dympna's Hospital and we were turned down. Again, that evening there was a motion from the Government side. It is utterly ridiculous that this is happening.
On a point of order, since the question of the matters on the Adjournment were raised before the Order of Business, is the matter now relevant or should the Leader of the House be replying to the Order of Business as moved?
On the Order of Business, the attack by the Leader of the Opposition on the Cathaoirleach is absolutely unfair and I would ask Senator Lanigan to withdraw his allegations. We all know that the Cathaoirleach carries out his duties in a fair manner. When he looks at these things as they come before him he does not even look at the politics of the person who sends them in. They come in a certain order. This is an absolutely unfair attack on him and I would ask Senator Lanigan to withdraw it.
I do not think that anybody made any attack on me, in fairness to everybody.
I want to restate that what Senator Lanigan said is not an attack on you at all Sir. It does not matter to me whether it is Castlerea or Carlow, but it is about the unjustice of what is happening that I am cribbing. It is a backdoor attempt to get in to highlight their way and their thinking on these matters. It is an attempt to stymie this side of the House from making an effective——
It is a wide open door——
A wide open door, and I still have not got a reason why we were not allowed a debate on this as a matter of urgency.
I think the inconsistency of the Government side of the House is disgraceful. They will not allow a three hour debate but they will come in for a half hour debate. It is hypocrisy on their part.
In replying to the relevant points that we made on the Order of Business I would like to say the following: firstly, I want to be quite clear about the business proposed for tomorrow morning. The first item taken will be the Second Stage of the Courts Bill and it is hoped to take the remaining stages immediately afterwards. Following that it will be necessary to have a Motion for Early Signature by the President in order that this Bill can become law as soon as possible. Following the disposal of the matter of the Courts Bill, if there is any legislation, the discussion of any Stage of which has commenced this evening but was not concluded by 5 p.m., it is proposed that that would then be taken tomorrow and either concluded by 5 p.m. or run through until 5 p.m. If that discussion does not run through until 5 p.m. the motions that are next on the Order Paper, Motion No. 7 regarding the Joint Committee on Women's Rights in relation to social welfare and the report of the Joint Committee on Secondary Legislation of the EC on the crisis in farming will be taken. There are other agricultural motions which will be taken in their turn although it is doubtful if there will be time.
With regard to the query about the Air Pollution Bill, this is an extremely important piece of legislation. We are all very glad that we have got it introduced in the Seanad as a Bill so that we can have a thorough debate on it. It has not been ordered today because we wish to dispose of the National Development Corporation Bill and the Air Transport Bill before we deal with it. Unfortunately, the Minister himself will not be available next week. Otherwise, we would have hoped to debate the Air Pollution Bill, but I have every hope that the Minister will be available this day fortnight for the discussion of the Air Pollution Bill.
In regard to the query by Senator Cassidy about Item No. 26, which is the Broadcasting and Wireless Telegraphy Bill, the Senator knows that I have been making inquiries about this. It is bound up with a Bill in the Dáil. The wish of the Minister is that they should both move at the same time. I have been continuing to press him on that point. As I only returned from the United States overnight, I have not pressed him this week on it, but I will be in touch with him before the week is out. I think I have dealt with the point.
Will the Leader consider bringing it into the Seanad first, as it is a sensitive Bill for the Government?