It is proposed to take Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 in that order. No. 6 will be taken from 6.30 p.m. to 8 p.m. It is proposed to have the usual break for tea from 5.30 p.m. to 6.30 p.m.
Order of Business.
Is there any need to break for tea? I do not understand the need for a tea break. Some people suggest the reason is that some Senators want to go to their tea; the Senators who go to their tea would not be here anyway. I suggest that we do not break for tea. It is only 2.30 p.m. now and if we cannot work until 8 p.m. it is a bad day's work. I do not think it would not be out of order to suggest that we run through from 2.30 p.m. until 8 o'clock.
Agreed that there be no tea break.
Could the Leader of the House give us an indication of the Order of Business for tomorrow?
Before he does so, in view of the revised sitting times can I take it now that No. 6 will be taken at 5.30 p.m.
No, it will be 6.30 p.m.
I would like to ask the Acting Leader of the House what are the proposals for sitting next week and for how long it is intended that we adjourn for the Easter break?
The position is not quite clear. Normally we sit from 2.30 to 8.30 p.m. The position about 2.30 to 10 p.m. is not quite clear. It has become a little bit more confused now through doing away with the tea break. We are dealing with Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. From 6.30 to 8 p.m. we will be dealing with the question of the Labour Party Motion or the Private Members' Motion.
From 6.30 p.m. to 8 o'clock.
But last week and the week before that, the arrangement was that if the Government business was not finished, it carried on from 8.30 p.m. Is there any chance that with the tea break gone we would get the Government business done and finish up with the motion?
Is it agreed to have no tea break?
It seems to be agreed that we have no tea break.
On the intervention made by Senator Harte, there is a good point there. If he is agreeable that we take the motion from 8.30 p.m. to 10 o'clock and we continue on 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5——
That is not what I meant. As the fellow said, do not confuse me with the facts. I was hoping that we might get agreement that we would wind up; in other words if we are going to work an extra hour I do not see the necessity of carrying on right up to 10 o'clock. We should try to get the Government business finished rather than have to come back to it after the Private Members' Motion.
Before I call on Senator Cassidy, let me clarify this. Do we take Government business at 8 o'clock? When the Acting Leader is replying he might indicate that to us.
I would like to ask the Leader of the House when it is proposed to take, or is it proposed to take, No. 20 before the Easter recess? I was told last year that it was proposed to be taken before the Easter recess last year. I think we are going to go through another Easter without it being taken. If it is not going to be taken, is it going to be taken in the lifetime of this Seanad?
What I have ordered is Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and Private Members' Motion No. 6. While I am ordering Nos. 4 and 5 they may very well not be reached, but there is a possibility that they will be. The Leader of the Opposition, Senator Lanigan, suggested that there would be no tea break. That has been just a facility for Members, especially if there is a long Committee Stage Bill and a small number of Members are dealing with it. It is a useful facility to give them a break but if it is thought that that is not necessary or desirable today, that is acceptable. We quite agree.
For tomorow, we will be ordering Nos. 7, 8, 9, and 10 on today's Order Paper. Senator Cassidy asked about the situation of No. 20, the Broadcasting and Wireless Telegraphy Bill, 1985. I shall inquire about that and I will speak to Senator Cassidy. On the question of the Order of Business for next week, as I understand it it is proposed to sit on Tuesday and Wednesday. I have not got the file with me so I am not too sure exactly what is being ordered, but if the House desires I can indicate that when we resume after tea.
It will be Social Welfare?
I expect so.
It is intended to take Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10 tomorrow. It would seem to me as if Nos. 8 and 9 are not motions which have any immediate relevance to this House because the Vredeling Directive is not expected to go through the European Parliament. It is not expected that it will see the light of day eventually anyway, whether it is discussed at the European Parliament later on or not. Item No. 9 is one which has a certain relevance, but it has no immediacy, whereas there are other reports such as the one on acid rain which is of major import at present and the bilateral aid motion and since we are not taking Government Business, I would suggest that even Nos. 15, 17 and 18 would have more immediate relevance than Nos. 8 and 9 at this stage.
I share the views expressed by Senator Lanigan to a certain extent but the organisation of the business involves consultation with the Ministers concerned. However, I do not agree with his comments on the Vredeling report. That is a excellent report and involved a lot of work by a very dedicated subcommittee of the joint committee. It is there for quite a long while. It is important that the House should have an opportunity of expressing an opinion one way or the other on that. We have had consultations with the appropriate Department and I think it is there sufficiently long and that we should endeavour to take it.
In relation to the tea break, could I just remind the House that the Joint Services Committee of which the vice-chairman is a Member of this House, have spent the last three years trying to control costs? Their planning is based on the fact that most Members will have a specific time to eat there so as to try to curtail overtime and other expenses. After three years we have brought in a great budget, so it is a consideration. It is taxpayers' money, with all due respect.
Are you suggesting that we spend money?
There will be no tea adjournment anyway.
Order of Business agreed to.