May I ask a couple of questions? I accept the Order of Business which has been given for today but is the Leader of the House in a position to indicate anything about the order for tomorrow and to tell us what dates he has in mind for the recess and for the resumption? May I also ask if it is intended to complete the Abbatoirs Bill and the Adoption (No. 2) Bill this side of the recess or merely to complete their Second Stages?
Order of Business.
Mr. Lanigan: It is intended to take items Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 today. There will be no break during the day and we intend to sit late. The only guarantee I can give is that we will break at 6.30 p.m. to take the motion, Item No. 3.
On the point made by Senator McMahon, I have a funny feeling that he must not have read the Constitution. If he had, he would not query the fact that we have had a record number of Bills initiated here in the opening session of this Seanad. I assure the Senator that in the next few months there will be a further large number of Bills and I compliment the Taoiseach on his initiative in introducing so many Bills in the Seanad.
The Seanad has come under a tremendous amount of pressure from various sources over the past number of years. We are now being given an opportunity to redress in the public mind any problems there were in regard to this House being anything other than a talking shop. The people who speak about the House being a talking shop have never looked into the origins of the word "parliament" because basically the word "parliament" means a talking shop and that is as it should be. Many Bills will be initiated here during the lifetime of this Seanad and I can guarantee that there will be time given to everybody. Indeed, I have given time to everyone up to now to address themselves to the Bills on hand.
With regard to the condition of the Seanad Chamber, if anyone needs to have a detailed look at the proposals of the Office of Public Works, the report given by them to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges could be given to individual members if they so require. If anyone is worried about progress or plans it will not be too late to have a debate on the matter early in the next session. I guarantee that we will allow a debate at that stage.
On the Order of Business, I should like to compliment you on the statement you have made, to support the second part of your statement and to thank the Government for introducing legislation in this House. The party who were quick to criticise this House will have had less of an impact on legislation over the whole term of this Dáil than we have had in the first part of it. I should like to ask the Leader of the House the dates he has planned for the recess in order that we can plan ahead. I should also like to raise the question of the Private Members' motion which is to be taken at 6.30 p.m. Judging from the number of speakers offering on this motion there will not be enough time to facilitate them. As you said in your opening statement people are saying that the Seanad is being heard from and read about. The motion we are continuing today is of great relevance. Therefore, would the Leader of the House consider extending the time available for that motion? This would be in everybody's interest and in the interest of the House particularly.
I have no objection either to the Order of Business as outlined by the Leader of the House or to his using this House to the fullest extent, as he has been doing since this Seanad was elected. In the previous four and a half to five years we had been trying to do the same thing. It is generally appreciated by everybody that as one House of the Legislature, the Seanad can give the kind of detailed examination to Bills that is required.
I compliment the Leader of the House and the Government for using this House to ensure that legislation is properly discussed. I am not being derogatory about the other House but I am aware of the level of discussion and debate that can arise here. However, I am sure that legislation — the more the better — benefits from being initiated in this House.
The amount of legislation initiated here and the length of discussion that takes place on Bills is a matter for Members of the House. I am not aware of any effort by the Leader of the House to curtail any Member in contributing to legislation at any of its stages. In the past when a Bill appeared on the Order Paper as being ordered for Second Stage that reference normally gave some little time to people to prepare for the debate as a date for the debate was usually set. I presume that the Second Stage of the Abattoirs Bill will be ordered for this afternoon so that people who intend to contribute to it will be prepared.
If we intend to deal with Second Stage of the Abattoirs Bill, it is obvious, from the interest evoked, that we will need to sit late tonight and tomorrow and, possibly, next week. Will we also finish Second Stage of the Adoption Bill? I am aware that some people would like to contribute to that Bill. Is it intended before the recess to complete the Second Stages of these two Bills? If so, does the Leader of the House intend to extend the Private Members' motion after 8 o'clock as suggested by Senator J. O'Toole? Will the House resume after that motion is completed to continue the Abattoirs Bill?
I was delighted this morning when I heard you say that the Office of Public Works had appointed a contractor to restore the Seanad Chamber. We should all be very proud of the Seanad and the Dáil Chambers. Anyone who has visited the Houses of Parliament in other countries will appreciate that ours are much better than those abroad. I notice that a period of two and a half years was mentioned in your statement for the contractor to finish the job. This is a long time to have the job completed.
I said quite clearly that we were not discussing my statement.
I want to make a request. Will you ask the Office of Public Works to negotiate with the building contractor to have the Chamber completed in a shorter time? I had a little experience of this when the bar was being renovated. I succeeded in getting it done a little more quickly after negotiations. You might use your good offices to ask the Office of Public Works to encourage the contractor to have it finished more quickly.
I will try to copy you.
I support Senator O'Toole's proposal that the time for item No. 3 be extended in view of the likelihood of many more speakers offering. One possibility of extending it, if it is not feasible to take it this evening or tomorrow, is to make sure that it appears on the Order Paper when we meet next when its relevance will not have disappeared. In fact, since the education year will have begun, it will be even more relevant.
Apropos your statement, will it be clearly given to the media and the various groups who are quite concerned about the old Chamber because there has been a fair bit of questioning and concern about it. We accept your statement and are pleased to have it, but I hope various vested groups will be made aware of it.
On a matter of information, is there any possibility that there will be a development on the lengthy debate we had on the role, status and electoral process for this House? If I recall rightly, Senator Robinson made a proposal that there should be a committee of Senators to go over the points proposed in the debate and, perhaps, we could make proposals. I do not know where such a committee would originate. Would it be from you, or have you given any further thought to it?
That committee has already been established, has met four times and is comprised of members of the parties represented on the committee on Procedure and Privileges. You should ask your leader or someone in your own party about this because Fine Gael have representation on that committee.
Like the other Senators, I welcome your statement very warmly but I will confine myself to supporting strongly what my colleague, Senator Joe O'Toole, said. I strongly request that there should be some extension of the time made available because I attempted to speak and it was not possible for me to do so. I see myself in some sense as representing a constituency by which I have been briefed at the very highest level. I speak of the University of Dublin which did not merit one single word of mention in the Minister's speech, something I found quite astonishing. There are specific problems relating to the development of the University of Dublin, but no mention has been made of them and I strongly request the opportunity to have this matter debated in public. It appears that if I do not take it up, nobody else in this House will.
The Leader of the House did not deal with the point I made, that is, my request for a few hours for an Adjournment debate. With regard to some of the remarks that have been passed, I never regarded the Seanad as a talking shop. I regarded it as doing a very important job as a House of the Oireachtas. We are doing a more important job today than we have been doing down the years. I do not think anybody can deny that a Bill initiated in the Dáil, unfortunately, gets a greater deal of public debate. We have been fighting for the attention of the media and we have been getting more in recent times but nothing like what we should be getting, and, certainly nothing like the attention Bills initiated in this House should be getting. The media are giving the Seanad greater coverage now when the Dáil is not sitting, but when the Dáil is sitting, how much attention will we get for Bills initiated in the Seanad? We are doing a far better job on Bills initiated in this House now than we did in the past when they were first publicly debated in the Dáil and then in the Seanad. I am glad to have an opportunity to at least air those views and that is why I am asking the Leader of the House to allow even a couple of hours for an Adjournment debate so that we could review what we have been doing during this session. I believe this would be healthy for ourselves, for the country and for democracy.
Apropos what has been said about introducing legislation in this House, I want to congratulate this Government and the previous Government in their latter days on the way they introduced legislation——
The 1973-77 Government were the first to initiate Bills in this House.
I was not here at that time. Between 1973 and 1977 I did not anticipate that I would ever be here.
I did not either
(Interruptions.)
Senator Ryan, without interruption.
I was severely discomfited by those remarks. As you know, a Chathaoirligh, because you were involved, the Seanad has dealt with major legislation and the debates on the Status of Children Bill and the Clinical Trials Bill in the last Seanad in my view justify the existence of the House on their own. Therefore, I want to thank the Government for continuing that position. It is also somewhat of a tradition that we sometimes comment on the Order of Business on events that happened outside this House, but when an event occurs which is noted throughout the world, as happened recently, I would like the House to note it. A man celebrated his 69th birthday last Saturday, and it was also the 25th successive birthday he spent in prison. When that man is visited in prison by world leaders and statesman, and when he celebrates, as I said, his 25th successive birthday in prison, we should send the greetings of this House to him. I suggest, therefore, that the greetings of Seanad Éireann should be sent to Nelson Mandela on the occasion of his 69th birthday.
I refer to motion No. 26. The Labour Party group have not been afforded any Private Members' Time during this session of the Seanad. This is the motion we would have been putting had we been afforded Private Members' Time. This motion is non-contentious. It deals with an anomaly in the local government Acts which, when they were drafted, did not foresee that Local Authority outdoor staff would be on short time. I ask the House's indulgence and ask the Leader of the House to give the Labour Party the opportunity to formally move and second this non-contentious motion. This is of grave concern to 230 outdoor staff members of Waterford County Council who will lose some pension rights and part of their lump sum because they must work 250 days in the year——
You cannot move the motion now. You are just asking the Leader of the House when it may be taken.
I am asking for an opportunity to formally move and second this motion. There is no dissension among the parties in Waterford County Council. They are all fully in favour of this anomaly being rectified.
May I, on two matters, give an indication to the Leader of the House? We on the Fine Gael side would support the proposal to extend the time allocated to the education motion this evening. I would like him to know that this matter has arisen since I first spoke on the Order of Business. Also, if it is possible, I would certainly support the suggestion of Senator Brendan Ryan to send birthday greetings to the imprisoned South African freedom fighter, Nelson Mandela, in Paulsmore Prison.
I am glad that the excellent record of the Seanad in initiating and passing legislation during this session has been highlighted. I would like to support emphatically the plea by the independent Senators here that the time for the discussion on that very important motion on education cuts would be extended, as has been done in the case of the discussion on the role of the Seanad. These education cuts, as has been said, are of major concern to students, teachers and various interests throughout the country. I would like to put it to the House and to the Leader that there is a wide spectrum of expertise and opinions in this House. It would be appropriate that the Minister for Education and the Government would be aware of these opinions. As the Leader of the House has already indicated, he is anxious to facilitate the participation of all Senators who wish to contribute in these debates. I would appeal, therefore, to him to facilitate Senators who wish to speak on this very important motion.
There was a number of speakers on the Order of Business. Would members of the Opposition parties be as willing to have the time extended for a Government motion as for the Opposition motion?
We tried to get the Extradition Bill discussed.
Independence is not necessarily opposition.
I do not intend to allow an open-ended discussion on anybody's motion, whether it be Fine Gael, Independents or Labour. Having said that, since there is a number of speakers who wish to contribute, I would ask the Members who wish to speak to curtail the length of their speeches and to cut their time possibly from 15 minutes to 7 minutes. That would allow more than double the number of speakers in; it would give everybody an opportunity. Even Senator Norris would be able to make a number of relevant points on Trinity College in a seven-minute speech. Anybody who could not make his or her point in seven minutes should not be making the point at all. I would suggest that the Whips meet and that we would allow a short extension of time but that there will be a curtailment of time for each speaker. If the Whips could meet immediately after this, the matter can be discussed between now and 6.30 p.m.
To get back to the points made by Senator Bulbulia, it is intended that we take the Second Stage only of the Abattoirs Bill and the Adoption Bill. Quite a number of people around the country have a major interest in the Abattoirs Bill because it has repercussions not only for the people involved but also at local authority and health board levels. There will be plenty of time for discussions before we take Committee Stage of that Bill. The Adoption Bill, again is a Bill in which many people have an interest and it is better teased out on Committee Stage. Again, we will allow time to elapse before Committee Stage and concluding Stages of that Bill are taken.
Regarding the recess, it is intended that we come back early in September. I am not giving any guarantee as to whether it will be 9 September or 16 September but for anybody who wishes to make plans between now and then, the situation is that we will not come back earlier than 9 September or later than 16 September.
Senator Ferris referred to the procedure for ordering and taking Second Stage. Possibly I should have ordered Second Stage last week and taken it this week but it was on the Order Paper and people knew it was coming up. I will ensure in future that there will be a time lapse, even if it is only a day between the ordering and the taking of the Second Stage.
Senator Fennell mentioned the groups who have a vested interest in the Chamber. The Members of this House, the Committee on Procedures and Privileges and the Office of Public Works have a more vested interest in seeing that the job is done properly than some of the people who have indicated their interest. Their points have been taken by both the Office of Public Works and the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and they will be kept informed. The only body who have a right to reply are An Taisce. They must be replied to, but that does not mean that the others who also have an interest will not be given the up-to-date information.
When mention was made at the begining of this session of the role of the Seanad, the Committee on Procedure and Privileges met immediately and a sub-committee of that committee has been formed. As the Cathaoirleach has said the members have met already four times and are discussing a number of matters which will make the role of the Seanad seemingly more relevant, and I stress the word "seemingly".
Senator McMahon said that possibly democracy is not seen to be done because the reporting of the Seanad debates is not given the same inportance as the debates are given, on their initiation, in the other House. It is not this House which is hindering democracy in this area; rather is it the media who are not reporting the debates which take place here. I will not say anything further on that except that democracy has not been served by the media in their inattention to the Seanad which is a very important part of the legislature, and the media should pay as much attention to it as they do to the other House, particularly when Bills are being initiated here.
Senator Brendan Ryan mentioned Senator, or Mr. Nelson Mandela — possibly he would be a Senator if he were allowed to go into the upper House of this country.
Or into any House.
I do not know what the procedure is for a matter of that nature but I am sure that the Cathaoirleach will inform us. If that can be done I would have absolutely no objection to a message of that type going out to Nelson Mandela.
Senator Brian O'Shea raised a question regarding item No. 26. I have not refused to take motions from the Labour group. Indeed, Senator Ferris would have to agree that at a meeting of the Committtee on Procedure and Privileges I agreed that the Labour Party, even though they do not constitute a group in terms of their numbers, be given the facility of introducing motions, but they will do so in rotation. Regarding the motion that Senator O'Shea has put down, he will have an opportunity to bring that motion forward very early in the next session and I think that should be acceptable.
Senator McEllistrim again raised the matter of the Chamber and referred to the employment of contractors. From what I know the contracts will be placed by people who will want to come in here, do the necessary job on that Chamber and get out. From the list of people who have expressed an interest in tendering, I have absolutely no doubt that the job will be done correctly, and that the Chamber will be as all interested groups wish to see it.
I thank the Leader of the House for his comprehensive reply but could he tell us specifically until what time the House will sit this evening and what the sitting hours will be tomorrow?
We have to take the staff of the House into account in deciding until what time we will sit today. Sitting hours today will be dictated by the debates on the two substantive Bills before us, items Nos. 1 and 2. There are some amendments in item No. 4. It may be possible to finish today and if so we will sit late. However we cannot sit too late, and if business is not concluded today we will sit tomorrow at 10.30 a.m.
The Leader of the House did not deal with my question about the possibility of an Adjournment debate.
It is not the intention of the House to have an Adjournment debate. I have already indicated that we have granted an extension of time for the motion before us and that should be sufficient. If the Senator wishes to raise any matter he can do so by way of motion or, if it is a matter of major urgency, he can raise it on the Adjournment under Standing Order 29 but it is not intended to have a full Adjournment debate.
Order of Business agreed to.