It is proposed to order Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 and to take them in that order. Item no. 1 is purely formal. We have merely to fix the sitting day. Nos. 2 and 3 will be discussed until 5.30 p.m. It is proposed to suspend the sitting from 5.30 p.m. until 6.30 p.m. and to take No. 4 from 6.30 p.m. until 8 p.m. For the information of Senators I might indicate that it is proposed that the House will sit tomorrow and, in view of the large amount of legislation being introduced directly into the Seanad that is on the Order Paper, it is proposed to take legislation tomorrow morning. If Nos. 2 and 3 have not been concluded by 5.30 p.m. this evening they will be taken tomorrow morning. Items Nos. 5 and 6 will be ordered tomorrow and they will be taken after lunch, unless taken earlier because of the completion of the legislative items.
Order of Business.
I am not too sure why No. 1 is being ordered. I imagine that every Member will agree that there are a lot of problems more urgent than item No. 1. If we are to deal with priorities I would imagine that items Nos. 7 and 8 would be of much more relevance to the people in general than items Nos. 1, 2 or 3. I can agree that we have to continue the debate on the Control of Clinical Trials Bill and I recognise that there are problems attached to it, but the problems attached to that and the Control of Dogs Bill, 1986, are of very little relevance to the people when compared to another piece of legislation on the Order Paper, the Air Pollution Bill. Anybody who has been addressing themselves to world problems recently will recognise that the problems created by pollution from Chernobyl, the problems associated with the Nirex problem in Britain and the problems associated with Sellafield, are of major importance and should be given priority this week. The Status of Children Bill is of greater importance than item Nos. 1 and 3. The National Monuments (Amendment) Bill is of much more relevance to our people than item No. 3 and I should like to ask the Leader of the House if we could have a change in order of priority so that legislation of immediate relevance to the country is taken before legislation which in itself is useful but not of major importance to the people.
It is normal when there is a change in personnel in ministerial office that a message is sent to the Seanad and I should like to ask why in this case when there was a change the matter was not brought to the Seanad as usual. Secondly, I should like to support our leader, Senator Lanigan, in his call to ensure that when this House is sitting, particularly at a time when the country is faced with many problems, that matters discussed be more relevant. Some few weeks ago a Fine Gael Deputy said that the Government were like a juggernaut hurtling down a hill with no brakes. We have a number of controls as far as Bills are concerned but we do not seem to have any real control. We are anxious to see the business of the House reflect the national problems that are out there and be seen to attend to them.
I am very disappointed at the content of the Order Paper before us. The Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission Bill seeks to dilute the powers of Dublin Corporation while the Control of Clinical Trials Bill and the Control of Dogs Bill, are important in their own right. On the Order Paper interspersed between the first 27 items there are a few Bills buried such as the Status of Children Bill and the National Monuments (Amendment) Bill. It does not appear that there is any urgency placed on the Broadcasting and Wireless Telegraphy Bill or the Criminal Justice (Abolition of Death Penalty) Bill. This Housing (Homeless Persons) Bill has been with us for a long time. It appears to me to be the intention of the Leader of the Seanad that we should sit more days than any Seanad.
The only reason why the Seanad has been recalled is so that it can be said that we sat on more days than any Seanad. I could name a number of necessary Bills that should have been before us to deal with the problems that are confronting the Irish people. I regret very much that the content of the Order Paper today does not relate to the problems that confront the Irish people.
With regard to the Criminal Justice (Abolition of Death Penalty) Bill, I raised that issue on the Adjournment in December last and I wonder if it has not been overtaken by events in that I understand the Minister is bringing in a different Bill altogether. Is the Department working on that? I cannot see the sense of that Bill remaining on the Order Paper if the Minister intends introducing a Bill. One of the problems with an Order Paper is that from time to time we do not have a look at it and see what we can take off it and put something more important on it. If individuals responsible for putting down a motion, find that events have overtaken it, it is up to them to get that motion taken off the Order Paper. In this case, this is not a question of individuals tabling a Bill, so I would like to know exactly what the Leader of the House is implying: what is happening about the Criminal Justice (Abolition of Death Penalty) Bill? Is there in fact a new Bill coming in? If there is not a new Bill, can we either deal with this Bill or take it off the Order Paper?
In view of the fact that farmers' incomes have dropped so drastically during the past 12 months and also that agriculture in general has been affected so adversely because of the inclement weather of the past two summers, and in view also of the proposed changes that have been made, or are being talked about regarding the CAP, would it be possible to have a debate on this very important issue here in the near future so that we could make the views of Irish agriculture known to the bureaucrats in Brussels, and tell them in no uncertain manner that we are not prepared to accept the changes that have been proposed by the EC Commision?
This is now the third year that I have been involved here and I would like to know when it is proposed to take No. 28 on the Order Paper. The Leader of the House assured me on a few occasions that he would speak to the Minister in charge and come back and let me know about it. Maybe the Minister has not made him any more aware than anyone else around the country. I know that problems exist between the parties in Coalition and there seems to have been further secret talks during the Summer Recess. Maybe he could give the House an assurance that he will let us know within the next week or two what the situation is going to be in relation to No. 28.
A number of matters have been raised. First, let me deal with the question of the Private Members' Bills. A particular Private Members' Bill was raised and also in the listing of legislation Private Members' Bills were raised. It must be realised that my main responsibility is in regard to Government legislation but it is also part of my responsibility to give as much of an opportunity as possible to private Members to raise matters which they wish to raise. That is being done in the present Seanad to a greater extent than in any previous Seanad. This evening we will be taking Private Members' Business from 6.30 p.m. to 8 p.m. We will be taking it again next Wednesday from 6.30 p.m. to 8 p.m. It is the turn of the Independent group to choose the topic for discussion. There was nothing to prevent the Private Members' group from designating any of the Private Members' Bills that are on the Order Paper as the Private Members' Business for this week and next week. According to the existing arrangement, that would then have been the business that I would have ordered. I have ordered as Private Members' Business this evening the particular item which I was given to understand was the chosen priority topic of the Independent group and that is why it is there. In regard to No. 28, the Wireless Telegraphy Bill, I could make a record of my reply to this because I am sorry to say to Senator Cassidy I have only the same reply to make as I have made before, that discussions are continuing, that the Minister is hopeful that the discussions will shortly come to a successful conclusion and that I will be informed when this is done. That is a reply I have given many times before.
Marathon discussions; for 3 years.
That is the reply I give today. I want to deal with the broad issue that was raised by the Leader of the Opposition in regard to the Government Business that has been put down here for discussion. First let me clear a point; No. 1. is on the Order Paper today because this Bill was circulated to the Seanad rather than to the Dáil. We have to make an order today when we want to discuss it. I am not going to propose when item No. 1. is called that we discuss it today. Possibly we will designate it for next week. It may not be discussed next week. This is a matter that remains to be seen.
The position is that we have in this House six Bills directly introduced into the Seanad. All I want to say is that this House should be very grateful for that circumstance. I cannot remember an occasion on which six Government Bills were standing on the Seanad Order Paper at one time. Of course I had the problem looking at those six Government Bills introduced into the Seanad and deciding in which order they should be taken. If I consult the Ministers as everybody knows, to every Minister his own Bill is the most urgent Bill that ever went through each House of the Oireachtas. I have listed those Bills in the order in which they came to the Seanad subject to the constraints of Ministers being available to take them and not being out of the country on official business. The Control of Clinical Trails Bill which has been put down for discussion here today was introduced on 16 April 1986. We are now here in October, almost six months later, and we have only had one speech on the Clinical Trials Bill; the substantial Second Stage debate has not begun at all. It was my view as Leader of the House and it is a proper view that it is no use for me as Leader or anybody else as Leader or the leader of any group in this House going to Ministers and asking them will they please bring legislation directly into the Seanad. Will they give us the position of being an independent House of the Legislature equally entitled to receive legislation of the Dáil if, when Ministers having done so find their Bills lying undiscussed for six months or longer in this House? We would very rapidly get back to the position whereby Ministers would adopt the old easier habit of automatically letting everything go into the Dáil. We would be here in the Seanad attempting to run after the Dáil waiting until things have finally come through the log jam in the Dáil and we would be asked to pass them rapidly.
We have an opportunity to discuss these Bills at our convenience. By coming back here on 1 October we have an opportunity to have a mature discussion on six Bills which the Government decided to introduce directly into the Seanad and in my view we should take that opportunity. While I believe there can be adjustment in regard to the order and there will probably have to be an adjustment in regard to the Order, nevertheless I think six Bills having been introduced into this House which is not a debating Chamber, is not a debating society but is part of the Legislature with six Bills on the table, our job is to discuss those Bills thoroughly and show that Seanad Éireann is a real House of legislation that can take Bills before it, and given due time, can make a job of commenting on these Bills.
Is the Order of Business agreed?
With your permission I would like to offer the congratulations of this House to Senator Jimmy Deenihan on his recent marriage.
The Senator has not my permission.
That is why I offered it to him before the Chair gave permission. While the rest of us were thinking up ideas to move matters on the Adjournment, Senator Deenihan was getting down to the business of getting married. We hope that his new permanent relationship will stabilise his political future and that, if it is his ambition to be elected to the other House that ambition will be fulfilled to ease the burden on those who share his panel.
On a point of information and order, a question was raised as to why we had not been notified of a change in ministerial office. It is a running down of the powers and the privileges of this House that have been enunciated by the Leader of the House. The Government should at least give us the courtesy——
I am asked to get in touch with the Taoiseach's office. There is no obligation on the Taoiseach's office to notify us.
It is a total discourtesy to this House that he would not. The Taoiseach has been discourteous to this House in the past in regard to the absence of Ministers. On this occasion the Taoiseach should have notified us.
On a point of order, I protest at the accusation of discourtesy against the Taoiseach. The Taoiseach has attended this House more often than most, if not all, of his predecessors and has shown this House personal courtesy on many occasions.