It is proposed to take Item No. 1 today.
Order of Business.
Could we have some indication as to whether it is proposed to finish the Second Stage of Item No. 1 today because I would like to make a very strong point on that. I have to repeat what I said earlier this week, that we see no reason to take this Bill here today. We feel that, if ever legislation needed time for reflection, this is it. The passage of the weekend would have allowed Members of this House to reflect on many points that were made in the other House and, indeed, to talk to outside groups who have a very definite interest in this legislation. The debate in the other House showed just how important an open mind is on these very important matters. I was very impressed with the open-minded approach of the Government.
While I welcome the Senator's last remark——
You should not.
——you may not make a speech now. You may make a point.
I am endeavouring to be constructive and if I may make this point I will not be any way obstructive in voting against the Order of Business. It is an important point and it has to be made. I feel that this is not emergency legislation. There is no time deadline to be met. The other deadline on extradition was met earlier this week. We on this side of the House will be urging the President very strongly to refer this Bill to the courts when it goes through both Houses, because we want to ensure that there are no constitutional doubts overhanding this Bill. Since the President will almost certainly do that — not at our urging but I am sure it is the proper thing for him to do — there is no question of this Bill coming——
My idea of a speech, when I was on the floor of the House, was the length of time you have now taken. I am just trying to make a comparison for you. Could we get back on to the Order of Business?
I learned well from reading your interventions on the Order of Business at a different time. Our concern is that no doubts overhang this Bill and that it gets the fullest possible debate. I would suggest, first of all, that Second Stage should not be completed today, that a time limit should be fixed for the end of today's sitting, that we break at 5.30 p.m. and continue Second Stage next week, or whenever it is proposed that the debate be continued.
Secondly, I want to put on record the opposition of my group to the way in which this Bill is being rushed through the House. I suspect that my reservations are shared by many in all parties in this House.
I would like to support strongly what Senator Manning has said. I believe it is unfortunate that this Bill is being rushed through. I would also like to have a ruling from the Chair on a matter related to this from the Order of Business that was taken last week. I would remind the House that Senator Joe O'Toole and myself had put down a motion on this subject which was withdrawn as a result of advice from the Leader of the House that he would give time at the earliest possible moment to take Item No. 12 on the Order Paper which was a Bill in the name of Senator O'Toole and myself amending the Extradition Bill. However, on——
What you are raising now does not require my ruling at all. It is a matter for the House itself. That answers that one for you.
May I ask for a ruling on the following point? It is a point of order and a point of the Constitution. Senator Lanigan said that it was impossible to take this Bill because of business being conducted in the other House. When I asked whether the business of the House was to be dictated by the operations of the lower House Senator Lanigan said: "Under the Constitution." I asked then what section of the Constitution and was refused an answer. I think it is important for the proper conduct of business in this House that we know whether we are operating under the 1937 Constitution or the improvised Lanigan Constitution of 1987.
I have one further question on the Order of Business. I would like to know from the Leader of the House if there will be provision for a debate on foreign affairs. I understood this was to take place. I think it is important in the lamentable absence of an Oireachtas joint committee on foreign policy, particularly in the light of the visit of Mr. Gorbachov. I believe he may stop at Shannon Airport. It is very important to say that this would be a useful opportunity to protest at the repetition of untrue statements by Mr. Gorbachov about the fate of Raoul Wallenberg.
Senator Norris, in the name of Heaven what does it have to do with today's Order of Business in the Seanad what Mr. Gorbachov does, where he lands, or stops, or takes off from?
An opportunity on the Order of Business to have the matter of foreign policy discussed.
It was a detail. The Senator had me confused.
I have no objection to the Order of Business. I agree with Item No. 1 being taken today. There was general agreement the last day we sat and the Leader of the House assured us that the Bill would not be rushed through the House. It is appropriate that we should at least begin discussion on the Extradition (Amendment) Bill following its passage through the other House. I agree with the way the Leader has ordered it. However, I take the point Senator Manning has mentioned. Is it the intention to compete all of Second Stage today, or is it intended that the House shall rise at the appropriate time and continue next week? If so, on what day next week does the Leader of the House suggest we should continue Second Stage? That is really all I want to ask. It is appropriate, if we are doing that, that we should not have a lunch break or a tea break and get as much of the Second Stage debate completed today as possible. I certainly do think we should not rush it through to completion and the Leader of the House has agreed not to rush the Bill. I welcome his assurance on that.
The Leader of the House to reply.
The intention is that we take Second Stage of Item No. 1 today. We will not break for lunch or tea. The Whips can get together later in the afternoon to discuss a finishing time or a concluding time depending on which is appropriate.
Second Stage will be concluded today?
Yes.
This is a very impractical arrangement. It gives the lie to the assurance the Leader of the House gave us earlier this week that this Bill would not be rushed through. Surely it is more appropriate to fix a time to convenience the Members of this House and to facilitate greater debate and to have this debate concluded at 5.30 p.m. to 6 p.m. this evening and to continue it next week?
The Order of Business is the Second Stage of the Extradition (Amendment) Bill, 1987. I am not going to give any assurances as to what time we will finish. I am not going to give an assurance that we will finish this evening; it may be tonight; it may be tomorrow morning.
I am now finding myself in disagreement with the Leader of the House because I understood that we were not rushing the Bill. I understood that there could be discussions this afternoon. I understand there are many speakers on all sides of the House and we are unlikely to finish so let us be reasonable. We will discuss through the Whips in the afternoon the proposed finishing time. It does not necessarily mean the completion of Second Stage. We will do what we can. Let us not argue about it. The Whips should meet.
Second Stage will be taken today. I will give no other guarantee.
Is the Order of Business agreed?
No, but we will not vote against it.
Question put and declared carried.