Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 27 Apr 1988

Vol. 119 No. 6

Order of Business.

Mr. Lanigan

It is proposed to take Items Nos. 1 and 2 today. Because the Labour Party have been given the opportunity to act as a group I think we should have a restriction on the amount of time each contributor should have to speak on the motion in their names since there is an amendment in from the Fine Gael Party. The motion has been restricted to one hour and a half instead of three hours. If the normal procedure that has been in vogue in terms of motions from groups were followed, it would mean that the Government Party would not have any opportunity to get involved in this. If we could have agreement that ten minutes would be the time for the proposer and seven minutes for everybody else, we might reach an accommodation which would be agreeable to the Labour Party and have a reasonable discussion on the motion.

I am glad to hear the report from the Minister on the status of the Seanad building. I am glad he recognised that the level of attendance is one of the problems that is associated with the temperature in the building. I never heard that thermostatic valves could be introduced which would lower the temperature in a House of Parliament. Nevertheless, it does not appear that thermostatic valves are not appropriate in this instance and that the level of attendance is very good. I am delighted that the ceiling in the main House will not be disturbed because it is of major architectural importance. The fact that it will not be disturbed is beneficial to everybody and we will all agree that it is a very good thing. The fireplaces and ceilings in that room are of major importance architecturally and historically. I am delighted that there will be no great disruption of them.

If we could have agreement on ten minutes for the proposer of Item No. 2 and seven minutes for everybody else, I do not think we should have any great problems on the Order of Business today.

Mr. Ferris

I welcome the report on the work that is proceeding next door. I hope that what I have to say now will not raise the temperature any further. When we reached agreement on these motions and were allowed to have a one and a half hour debate at alternate periods so as to register our concern at some of the actions of the Government there was no suggestion that our time would be restricted further. I did not ask the Fine Gael party to put down an amendment. The Leader of this House is now looking for a reduction in our time so that Fine Gael can propose their amendment. I agree and recognise that the Government side of the House are entitled to a ministerial response to a Private Members' Time motion from any group but, because of the fact that Fine Gael now want to amend our motion, we are supposed to forfeit some of the very limited time which has been allowed to us by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges where we discussed this at length and reached agreement on the procedure that was to be followed. This is the first I have heard of a possible change. It is rather unfair that we have not been communicated with on this decision by different groups. The Labour Party have not been consulted about anything. We have not been consulted about sitting times, motions or anything else in this House since our members were reduced to three. There will be other days. It is unfair to reduce further the limited time that it has been agreed to give us.

Professor Murphy

I am very glad to hear the good news about the progress in the reconstruction work next door. I am sure we are all amused by the inference that the best way to deal with our present discomfort is that most of us should absent ourselves from debates. Despite your prosaic rendering of the events, a Chathaoirleach, I was struck by the rich imagery. It seemed to me you were talking not simply about the Seanad Chamber but about the state of the nation. The walls will not fall down. We will have a roof still over our heads. It seems to me that these phrases are resonant with historical——

An Cathaoirleach

Whatever about the state of the nation, would the Senator stick to what I have just said?

Professor Murphy

I challenge you, a Chathaoirligh, to inspect the record and see where I have been irrelevant. We will be restored to our former greatness. Beigh Gaeil bhochta arís ina gceart agus beidh Éire fós ag Cáit Ní Dhuibhir. I am delighted to hear that good news.

On the Order of Business, Senator Mooney and myself, in a rare moment of harmony, agreed before the Easter recess that the time was not suitable for discussing what is now Item No. 8 on the Order Paper: "That Seanad Éireann takes note of recent events affecting Northern Ireland and Anglo-Irish releations", a motion and a phrasing that I understand, are agreed by all the parties and all the Members of the House. I would suggest that his concern and mine have been somewhat alleviated by the passage of time, that the heated atmosphere then prevailing has now cooled and that there should be no further reason for any delay in disucssing this motion. In fact, sober and serious——

An Cathaoirleach

Senator Murphy, you are not moving the motion now, are you?

Professor Murphy

I am explaining, with respect to you and the Members, why it is appropriate that we should consider this motion at this time. I suggest that it is appropriate that we should consider the motion now because the debate is already beginning, a serious and sober debate. We should make our contribution to this debate. There are two further reasons why we should now discuss Item No. 8. One is the welcome intervention by the Foreign Secretary——

An Cathaoirleach

Senator Murphy, you are now making a speech.

Professor Murphy

No, I am not.

An Cathaoirleach

You are.

Professor Murphy

I am explaining why the motion should now be taken. The other main reason why it should be taken is that the House should get a chance to deplore the cynicism with which the Taoiseach——

(Interruptions.)

An Cathaoirleach

Senator Murphy, would you please resume your seat?

Professor Murphy

——tried to entice dollars from Irish Americans for the Fianna Fáil coffers.

Mr. Manning

On the Order of Business, we are very pleased with the good news about the state of the Chamber next door and we hope that pressure will be exerted to ensure that we will be back there as soon as possible. I have to take issue with Senator Ferris' remarks about the rights of smaller groups in this House. It is a matter of record that the Leader of the House and his party have done everything possible to ensure that there is the fairest possible distribution of time. It is entirely appropriate that if there is a motion on the Order Paper with which we disagree we are entitled to seek to amend that motion to express what we feel is the true and accurate state of things. I make no apology whatever for putting down that amendment. It is entirely within proper parliamentary procedures. However, I feel that this matter can be resolved without the type of sour remarks made by Senator Ferris. It is a matter which the Whips could talk about immediately after the Order of Business. I am quite sure that an arrangement can be found which will suit all parties and ensure that there is a fair hearing for all on this important issue.

On other matters on the Order of Business, I would like to ask the Leader of the House if he could indicate to us what the programme of legislation will be for this session. For example, there are the hardy annuals of the Order Paper, the Insurance Bill and the Companies (No. 2) Bill. When can we expect to see the Committee Stage of these resumed? Can he indicate to the House what further legislation will be coming through this session? It is very important that the Opposition should have an opportunity to know in advance what new Bills, if any, we may expect.

Also on the Order of Business, I would like to join with Senator Murphy in calling now for a debate which has been long promised on Item No. 8 on the Order Paper. I do not need to rehearse the reasons why this is now an important issue and this is the appropriate time to discuss it. I put my full support and that of my party behind Senator Murphy's call for a discussion on Item No. 8. Finally, I would like to give notice that I intend tomorrow to raise the question of the extremely disturbing report in The Irish Times today that the Spanish Government may be about to dump large quantities of toxic waste 300 miles off the south-west coast of Ireland, in the Gulf Stream and in the prevailing winds. I want to give notice that I should like to raise that question tomorrow.

Mr. Robb

I should like to support the proposal made by Senator Murphy. I should also like to say that I deplore the tone of the latter half of his proposal. Surely we have reached a point now where we must try to engage the different strands of thought and perception in Ireland, try to work through the conflict of interests, the conflict of prejudice, so that we can come up with something constructive——

An Cathaoirleach

Senator Robb, please.

Mr. Robb

——to carry forward what has already been achieved through the Anglo-Irish process.

Mr. J. O'Toole

I should like to raise an issue with the leader of the House on Items Nos. 6 and 7 on the Order paper, the Insurance Bill and the Companies (No. 2) Bill. I am amazed that no explanation was given to us in the House about what was said in the Lower House recently when the question was asked as to what was causing the delay on the Companies (No. 2) Bill and the Insurance Bill and the Taoiseach announced that they were being delayed in the Seanad. I have checked back on the record and on ten occasions within the past six months I asked the Leader of the House to order both these Bills and on ten occasions I got various different answers, mainly relating to the fact that they were not ready to be taken by the Departments in charge of them.

In my opinion that exchange, which was reported in the media, was damaging to the reputation of the House. It has certainly added to and reinforced public opinion of what this House does and does not do, that it is a lazy, indolent House. We are entitled to an explanation. I believe I have been misled in some sense by somebody over the past six months on these issues or else the Taoiseach has been misled. Either way this House is entitled to an explanation. This House has the right to demand that its reputation is left unsoiled by exchanges or events over which it has no control.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator has made his point.

Mr. J. O'Toole

I now wish to state that I intend in future on the Order of Business, every single day, to propose an amendment that the Companies (No. 2) Bill and the Insurance Bill be taken unless we get a reasonable and public explanation as to why they are not being taken.

The second item I want to raise is that I now want, on a weekly basis from the Leader of the House, a full progress report on how Seanad Bills which are at the moment in the Dáil are being dealt with. I want to know the reason for the delay on some of them which have been with them for quite some time, why they are not being dealt with in the other House and why they have not come back to us. It is time we started asserting ourselves and I look to the Leader of the House to represent us adequately in this matter, to give us proper explanations and to make it clear that we are not prepared to be made the patsys or the whipping boys for Departments which are not doing their work.

Mr. Harte

With regard to the Labour Party motion, let us not cod ourselves. The Labour Party are not going to be called to a Whips meeting. We do not constitute a Whip. If there is any problem about time, the matter has to be resolved here on the Order of Business. If there is a difficulty I want to state on behalf of the Labour Party that, as far as I am concerned, the debate can continue next week. I do not mean that it should not take place today but it can be extended beyond this week. We are not bound to finalise it today.

Mr. Ross

I would like to congratulate you, a Chathaoirligh, on the industry which you have shown in regard to the Seanad Chamber and the ceiling and the very obvious amount of work you have put into it.

I would like to support what Senator Murphy said about a debate on Anglo-Irish affairs — Item No. 8 on the Order Paper. It seems to me, with the best will in the world, that we have put this off for long enough. I remind the Leader of the House that this was put off by agreement before and it was put off before that, but only on the understanding that an all-party, non-contentious motion should be taken as soon as possible. That time has come at this stage and I do not see any reason why it should be put off any further.

In the tradition that we are now establishing and the custom of taking all-party motions, and on a subject which I know is close to the heart of the Leader of the House and many others, I wonder whether he would give the House time for a debate on the situation in the Middle East. We have a motion on the Order Paper, No. 44 in the name of Senator Norris, but it does not cover the global situation in the Middle East. Were we to have that I think we would get an opportunity to condemn in the strongest terms the fact that three members of the Oireachtas are at present in the Middle East, courtesy of a guerilla terrorist organisation, the Palestine Liberation Organisation, and they are being wined and dined by a guerilla group out there.

An Cathaoirleach

Senator Ross, we have to get agreement to take No. 44 first of all and then you can make your speech.

Mr. Ross

I do not think you want to take No. 44 a Chathaoirligh. What I want is a debate on the Middle East situation. The point I was making is that these three individuals, while they are condemning violence in the Republic, are out there, courtesy of the hospitality of the PLO.

An Cathaoirleach

Sit down Senator Ross.

Mr. Ross

I have not finished yet. I will finish very shortly. I would like to ask the Leader of the House, in view of his interest in the Middle East, whether he thinks those people should be there, whether they represent us and whether they are doing this country any good in the eyes of the world by being feted by a guerilla organisation, an organisation which invented hijacking and which is now posing as a mediator in situations like that.

Finally, I should like to say that what Senator O'Toole said about the Companies (No. 2) Bill is absolutely correct. We got, I think, another guarantee at the end of last session from Senator Ryan that the Companies (No. 2) Bill would come up on the second day of the second week in this session. I hope that finally we will not only keep to that promise but that the Companies (No. 2) Bill will get an early passage through the Seanad and will not just come up for one day and then go back again after a couple of amendments.

Mr. Norris

A Chathaoirligh, I would like to join the other Senators in welcoming the information you have given us with regard to the repairs to the Seanad Chamber. I wonder if you could add to this by giving some information with regard to when the Chamber will be ready for us to reoccupy. I would like to express a little concern about the level of literacy involved in the preparation of the Order of Business. I am, I suppose, to a certain extent a professional grammarian and it causes me very considerable distress to note two spelling errors on the first page of the Order of Business "gereatric" and "idicate". I would like to "idicate" my concern in this matter, even though I recognise that we are dealing merely with the second official language of the State.

I support the other Senators with regard to the holding of a debate on Item No. 8 but from a different point of view. I will confine my remarks to saying that I would welcome the opportunity to congratulate the Taoiseach on the statesmanlike way in which he has avoided the temptation to return the impertinent and offensive remarks of Mrs. Margaret Thatcher in kind.

An Cathaoirleach

Senator Norris, I did not allow one side so I cannot allow the praise.

Mr. Norris

I would also welcome a debate on the question of the Middle East and I would point out respectfully that Item No. 44 in my name and I am glad to say a number of other Senators' names would not be relevant because it deals, in fact, with the specific position of Soviet Jews. However, I think it would be important to have a debate on the Middle East. Although I suppose I am sometimes regarded as partisan in this matter, I hope I am not. I would merely say with regard to the issue of Senators travelling to the Middle East that, if they are representing this House, I sincerely hope they make a genuine effort to see both sides and not to be partisan.

Mr. Ross

They cannot if they are being paid for by a group of terrorists.

Mr. Norris

I would also like to ask, having just returned from the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg where some of the documentation offered on behalf of the Government side in this matter indicated, in my opinion totally inaccurately, that the Government were at present reviewing the status of the Offences Against the Person Act, 1861, and the 1885 Labouchere amendment, and since it has been reviewed——

(Interruptions.)

An Cathaoirleach

The first day's sitting has gone to all your heads. Would you sit down?

Mr. Norris

This is a very important question because it is being alleged that the Government are reviewing this and I am perfectly entitled to know if they are reviewing it. Could the Leader of the House give us an indication of when the Government will be introducing the legislation they are purporting to be preparing in Strasbourg?

Mr. Mulroy

I should like to point out that there is an inaccuracy in the motion. I am referring to the footnote at the end of the motion which reads:

and further opposes the decision of the Minister for Health to close St. Mary's Geriatric Hospital, Drogheda.

That is my home town and I would like to point out that the Minister has taken no such decision.

An Cathaoirleach

Senator Mulroy, you can make that statement this evening when we take the motion.

Mr. Mulroy

Should we be debating supposition and not fact? This is inaccurate and that is what I want to have clarified. In Drogheda discussions are on-going between the North Eastern Health Board, the Department of Health and the cottage hospital to transfer a small number of patients——

An Cathaoirleach

I have to clear the Order of Business, and the motion is supposed to be correct.

Mr. Mulroy

I am trying to explain what should actually be on the Order Paper. A small number of patients are being transferred from the old fever hospital, which is attached to St. Mary's, and the Minister has given an assurance that no hospital in Drogheda will be closed unless there is alternative suitable accommodation in the town. This motion, as written, is inaccurate.

Mr. S. Haughey

Taking up the point made by Senator Mulroy, I would like you to make a ruling on Item No. 2 as it is inaccurate. The previous Government and the previous Minister for Health, Deputy Barry Desmond, deliberately kept Beaumont Hospital closed for a number of years. There is no reference to that in this motion. In fact, this Government opened Beaumont Hospital. Is the motion relevant at all in that there is no reference to Beaumont which was opened by this Government but deliberately kept closed by the previous Government?

An Cathaoirleach

Those items will come up in the debate this evening. As for asking me for a ruling, it is the proposers who word the motion and are responsible for what is on the Order Paper before us today.

Mr. McGowan

Is the urgency determined by the political priorities of the Labour Party or those who actually sponsor the motion? Is that the urgency of the health service and is the Seanad serious in debating the financing of the health service in a motion selected by three members of the Labour Party? Is that an ordered motion and is it any serious attempt to make a contribution to a difficult matter? I do not believe it is. It is sensationalising specific areas. We are getting a lesson today——

An Cathaoirleach

It is for the House to decide whether Item No. 2 is taken today. I am trying to clear the Order of Business and we are listening now to contributions that will be made at 6.30 p.m. this evening.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. McGowan

I did not interrupt anybody on that side of the House. We diverted quite a bit from the Order of Business to the point when we got a lecture in elocution from some people. I ask Senator Norris to spell a word which is used very often in the country. It is "Booksologist" which means that you known everything about everything.

(Interruptions.)

An Cathaoirleach

Senator Lanigan to reply. I will quote the Minister for Education in saying that you are like a bunch of school kids. I do not think the fortnight's holidays did any of you any good.

Mr. Lanigan

Should I ask you, Senator McGowan, or the expert on spelling, how to spell "booksologist"? It is impertinent of Senator Norris to criticise the fact that there are two spelling errors on the Order Paper. I have seen examination papers from his own department with worse mistakes.

An Cathaoirleach

Senator Lanigan.

Mr. Lanigan

I did not say they came fom Senator Norris. I said they came from his department, and some students did not pass their examinations because of the inaccuracies in language coming from that department.

Mr. Norris

This is a serious allegation and is a very clear form of inaccuracy. Unfortunately, Senator Lanigan does not realise the difference between Trinity College, Dublin, and University College, Dublin, where this occurred.

An Cathaoirleach

I will suspend the sitting if you cannot behave yourselves.

Mr. Lanigan

I did not mention his college. On the Order of Business, the main thrust of argument is whether the Labour Party should have a motion taken and if there could be agreement on the length of time that should be taken on it.

Mr. Ferris

That is not the question. It has already been agreed by the House and by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges that we are entitled to a one and a half hour debate.

Mr. Lanigan

There was an agreement at the Committee on Procedure and Privileges that the Labour Party should be allowed an hour and a half. As a result of that agreement I thought we would take a Labour Party motion but, unfortunately, there is an amendment down by Fine Gael. I suggested that to give everybody a reasonable chance to discuss this we should confine the proposer to ten minutes and that everybody else should speak for seven minutes, but there does not seem to be agreement on that. The Minister will have the opportunity to come into the House and he can speak for as long as he likes in reply to the motion. That would not be in the interests of democracy. I would like the House to agree to ten minutes for the proposer and seven minutes for each speaker afterwards. It has been suggested that we should increase the length of time and there have been various other suggestions. I am not going to increase the amount of time. As a majority party, we were exceedingly interested in allowing minority groups in the Seanad to express themselves. We gave the Labour Party the opportunity and the opportunity that has been given to them has been taken away from them by the amendment put down by Fine Gael and, as a result, we must have some balance in the debate. The only way to do that is to have a ten minute and a seven minute time limit to speeches. I am prepared to have a vote on that unless there is agreement on it now.

There is no difficulty about having a debate on the Middle East but this House should not be abused by any Senator in terms of any visit that is being paid by parliamentarians to any part of the world. The PLO were mentioned here as being a terrorist organisation. The Venice Declaration by the EC specifically mentioned the PLO as being a legitimate organisation and it is recognised by the United Nations that the PLO are not a terrorist organisation — that the Palestine Liberation Organisation are a member of the international community representing the Palestinian people.

Professor Murphy

A slightly constitutional organisation.

Mr. Lanigan

Right across the world. They were recognised by the EC in the Venice Declaration specifically, and I reject the implications involved in what was said by Senator Norris.

Mr. Ross

It was I who said it.

Mr. Lanigan

Senator Ross — there is a major difference. If we can get back to the Order of Business, the Order of Business for the day will be Items Nos. 1 and 2. The Insurance Bill and the Companies (No. 2) Bill are two items that have been matters of controversy. The Taoiseach was right when he stated that the Bills were being held up in this House. The Bills were introduced in this House and they have not left this House. He did not make any other comment except that. There is a guarantee that today and tomorrow the Adoption (No. 2) Bill, which many people have been looking for, will be pursued. I am not suggesting how far it will be pursued but today and tomorrow that Bill will be pursued. If the Adoption (No. 2) Bill has gone through, the Companies (No. 2) Bill will be taken next week and I will not give any guarantee as to when the Companies (No. 2) Bill will go out of this House. The Companies (No 2.) Bill will not be "mickey-moused" out of this House. It will be given adequate debate here and it will go out of this House to the other House as a Bill that can stand up.

The Insurance Bill will come in as the next priority Bill once the Companies (No. 2) Bill has been pursued. I will not give a time scale because there is no point in giving a time scale to Bills which are of such importance. All I can guarantee is that next week the Companies (No. 2) Bill will come back in here and if it is pursued to the extent that it can be pursued the Insurance Bill will come in the week after. The House will have plenty of business within the next few weeks.

Senator Manning said that the Whips would meet on some matter he referred to. I would like to have the Cathaoirleach's ruling on a factual inaccuracy in the motion. Is it right to say "and further opposes the decision of the Minister for Health to close St. Mary's Geriatric Hospital", when that is a total inaccuracy and a total lie and is false and not relevant?

Mr. Ferris

I ask the Leader of the House to withdraw the accusation that it is a lie.

An Cathaoirleach

It is not a matter for the Chair. It is a matter for the proposer of the motion.

Mr. Lanigan

I withdraw the word "lie". We will accept that it can be debated, even though there is a total inaccuracy in the motion, that the motion will be taken, that ten minutes will be allowed to the proposer and that seven minutes maximum will be allowed to anybody else who speaks in that debate. Items Nos. 1 and 2 are the Order of Business for today.

Mr. Manning

There is a confusion in the reply of the Leader of the House. He said on the one hand that there will be no extension of time for Item No. 2. He also said there can be a Whips' meeting on this issue. I believe the Leader of the House could greatly help the atmosphere which is getting off to an unfortunate start today. He could help us greatly by agreeing to extend even by half an hour the time available for Item No. 2. I am quite sure the entire House would agree with this.

Mr. Ross

I appeal to the Leader of the House — I deliberately did not interrupt him — in relation to a very serious accusation which he made, perhaps inadvertently, with regard to Seantor Norris's work. Academic standards are precious and I am quite certain it could be deeply hurtful to be accused of faulty examination papers leading to failure particularly if, inadvertently, this was implied in relation to Senator Norris's department when, in fact, it appears as though it did not have any attachment to that Department. I hope the House will acknowledge that Senator Norris should have that correction read into the record. As a former academic I would find it quite offensive to have it suggested that students of mine had failed their exams because of inaccuracies in the way in which I had set the examination papers.

Professor Murphy

I do not want to have to say this, but I always recall when I was first elected to this House that I was informed by the then Clerk when I asked him about some point of procedure that it was for you to determine meaning "you" plural, that this was our House. It seems to me that on the Order of Business, whether we are away two weeks or four weeks, if we want to discuss anything that is remotely relevant to the Order of Business, even if we take some little time to say it, we should not be reproved, a Chathaoirligh with great respect, in the school-marmish fashion in which you have attempted to keep us in order, as if we were some kind of a prissy public debating society. This is one of the Houses of the Oireachtas. We are the Members of the Oireachtas. We have, within reason, every right to make our points at whatever length we make them as long as they are relevant, and I for one will not stand corrected, a Chathaoirligh.

An Cathaoirleach

There are rules here to clear the Order of Business and you and everybody else will abide by them.

Mr. Lanigan

I propose that the Order of Business, as announced, will be Items Nos. 1 and 2 and that Item No. 2 will be debated with the proposer having ten minutes to propose the motion and that each speaker afterwards will have a maximum of seven minutes. Of course I withdraw any inference in regard to Senator Norris. I do not think anybody could have inferred that I was seriously saying that Senator Norris would be anything but accurate in his presentation of examination papers.

Mr. Ross

A most important question has not been answered on Item No. 8 dealing with Anglo-Irish relations. It is ridiculous if we get up and make speeches about something and the Leader of the House simply ignores them. All we want is to know when Item No. 8 will be taken.

Mr. Ferris

I cannot agree to the proposed change in the agreed format for Private Members' Time at a moment's notice on the Order of Business. If this had been discussed with us beforehand I am sure that, as always, we would have reached agreement. This was thrown at us moments before the Order of Business was announced and I will not have it changed just like that because it suits somebody else. If we want to get agreement let us have it in the discussion, but we are not invited to any discussion. I got this agreement about Private Members' Business from the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. It was agreed by all sides that they would condescendingly allow us an hour and a half. When the boot was on the other foot every group in this House, including the two members of the Government, had time for Private Members' Business. All groups should have time for Private Members' Business and I accepted, because we were a small group, that we would have a lesser amount of time available, that it would be on one day at a specified time. Now Senators want to reduce that specified time. On principle I do not want to be obstructionist. I am against the change because we were not consulted and there was not agreement on it.

Mr. W. Ryan

We have changed the time before. We did not change it on the day before; we changed it on the Order of Business. That is my recollection.

Mr. Harte

We want to be clear on the position. There is a proposition before the House that the Order of Business be agreed and that confines itself to the question of Items Nos. 1 and 2.

Professor Murphy

It does not — it includes something else.

Mr. Harte

There is an argument about Item No. 8, which is not my argument. The main argument we had was on the question of time. When the Leader of the House was replying he said he was putting it to the House, but what he was doing in essence was asking the House to agree to take Items Nos. 1 and 2 and included in that decision would be a time limit on the speakers for our motion. That is not correct. We should have two separate votes.

Mr. Lanigan

I am not trying to knock the Labour Party's motion. The knocking of the Labour Party's time has been brought about by the fact that there is an amendment in the name of Fine Gael. There is to be an hour and a half of debate on this motion. The proposer of the motion has 20 minutes to propose the motion — that is the normal three hour motion. If we allow that 20 minutes, the proposer of the amendment has 20 minutes equally and that means the Labour Party lose in terms of their time. What I am trying to do is to give the Labour Party the maximum time that can be arrived at. I will not be brought into any further argument. It is not the Government party who are eating into the time. It is the fact that there is an amendment by Fine Gael.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Lanigan

Once I have concluded on the Order of Business there should be no further debate. The Order of Business should be put to the House now.

(Interruptions.)

Professor Murphy

With respect, before I decide how I should react to the proposed Order of Business the Leader of the House has not given us any response to the suggestions of various members about Item No. 8 being debated. Could we be given some indication of when this will be taken?

Mr. W. Ryan

We can have a debate on Item No. 8 at an appropriate time. We can agree on the time for the Labour Party Motion before it is raised at 6.30 p.m. The Whips could meet and resolve this without having a vote on it.

Mr. Ferris

I have the greatest respect for Senator Ryan and have had no problem ever in reaching agreement with him about anything. Why he did not talk to me about this before he proposed it, I will never know. Now we have learned the lesson that you do not treat people, no matter how small their group is, as if they could be taken for granted. I am prepared to meet and talk with Senator Ryan immediately after Items Nos. 1 and 2 are agreed. We have not agreed on the time until we reach agreement outside of the House.

Question: "That Items Nos. 1 and 2 be the Order of Business", put and agreed to.