It is proposed to take the Intoxicating Liquor Bill, the Agriculture (Research, Training and Advice) Bill and the remaining part of the motion. It is proposed that the order of the House which fixed the date for the taking of Committee Stage of the Intoxicating Liquor Bill for tomorrow be discharged to allow the Bill to be taken today. On completion of the Second Stage of the Intoxicating Liquor Bill last Thursday the House fixed the date for Committee Stage as Thursday, 9 June. That is why the Bill does not appear on the Order Paper as a numbered item of business but rather it appears at the end of the Order Paper under the heading "Bills in Progress". It is intended to take the Intoxicating Liquor Bill until 3.30 p.m., the Agriculture (Research, Training and Advice) Bill from 3.30 p.m. to 6.30 p.m., the motion from 6.30 p.m. to 8 o'clock and to resume the Agriculture (Research, Training and Advice) Bill at 8 o'clock. The House will adjourn not later than 12 o'clock tonight.
Order of Business.
On the Order of Business, may we take it that we will not have the Report and Final Stages of the Intoxicating Liquor Bill today, merely the Committee Stage? If this is agreed, the Order of Business is agreed also.
I in no way wish to be obstructive but this is the first I have heard of the Intoxicating Liquor Bill being taken today. Perhaps the Leader of the House could give us some reason why this is so. It is not on the Order Paper. I do not understand it and it is unfair to the House without explanation of any sort for this to be sprung on us in this way. I would like the Leader of the House to give us some reason why this has happened. The second thing I would like to ask about is the Companies (No. 2) Bill and what the plans for that Bill are, whether there was agreement amongst the Whips about this or whether there was an agreement amongst the Whips about the Intoxicating Liquor Bill?
The third thing I would like to ask the leader of the House about is Item No. 17, the abolition of hanging Bill, in my name and in the names of other Independent Senators. I wonder if the Leader of the House would tell us what the Government's attitude is to this Bill. We and Turkey are the only countries left in Europe that have hanging on the Statute Book. I wonder if the Government have any plans to abolish it, especially in the light of the fact that the British House of Commons for the umpteenth——
Senator Ross, you may ask a question as to when it is to be taken but you cannot discuss it in a Second Stage speech now.
It was a mistake to bring the House of Commons into it. I did not mean to say that they rejected hanging again yesterday. I would like the Leader of the House to tell us whether the Government intend to leave this on the Statute Book. It is high time that they faced this issue once and for all. It is very easy for them to take it off. It is very, very easy for them to duck it. I would like a reply from the Leader of the House on that.
Like Senator Ross, this is the first intimation I have had that we are taking the Intoxicating Liquor Bill today. I discussed this with the Whip and I understand that he was trying to contact me over the weekend and was unable to do so, so I accept what he has said as being true. I am also anxious to know if the Report Stage of the Intoxicating Liquor Bill will be taken tomorrow. I share Senator Ross's concern about hanging. He is probably the only conservative who is soft on this issue.
Somebody said he is a "wet'. I would not say that about him.
I find it hard to describe him.
He is no longer a conservative on the question of hanging. He has been consistent in his opposition to it. I admire that consistency. Fortunately, he is not a Member of the House of Commons because if he was, he would probably accept the Whip from Maggie.
I submitted a motion yesterday concerning——
I only received that in my post this morning and that was too late.
There must have been an error because I meant it to be in your post yesterday.
Can you not put it down for tomorrow?
I will put it down for tomorrow. It concerns the Thermo King factory in Galway which is an urgent matter. It is a little warning of what it is about.
I have the warning. We will talk it through tomorrow. Senator Ferris, I do not like correcting you, but when you refer to the British Prime Minister——
I did retract that. You did not hear me because you were listening to Senator McCormack. I am sorry. I should have said the British Prime Minister. She is known as Maggie, affectionately, but the British Prime Minister is the appropriate term.
We are all known as something other than what we are.
I have raised over a number of weeks the question of the Companies (No. 2) Bill and the need to have it taken fairly urgently in the House. Last week I was assured that it could not be taken this week so that we could deal with the Insurance Bill which now is not being dealt with either this week. The two most urgent matters of business before the House are now being ignored, as it were. I will certainly be proposing an amendment to the Order of Business today that we take the Companies (No. 2) Bill today.
I may not have heard the Leader of the House correctly but I think he said that the House will not sit later than 12 o'clock tonight. I would like him to be absolute and certain about that considering that mayhem that followed an extension without consultation last week.
The Order of Business can be changed by the House at any stage during the proceedings. The Order of Business was changed by agreement of the House.
I disagree.
The Senators disagreement does not make that much difference. There was an "Act" on; I will make no further comment.
Senator Connor.
The Leader of the House should not mislead the House.
The point was put to the House at 10.50 p.m. The record of the House will show that it was done in accordance with the rules of the House. At any stage the Order of Business can be changed by order of the House. I order the business in the morning and after that it can be changed.
As far as the Companies (No. 2) Bill and the Insurance Bill are concerned, we were ordering today's business and we are sitting tomorrow. In order to facilitate Senator O'Toole, the Insurance Bill will be taken tomorrow and the Companies (No. 2) Bill will be taken next week. I gave an indication last week — Senator O'Toole must not have been listening — that it would not be taken this week, that it would be taken next week. He looked for an agreement that he would have time to study the amendments that were put down by the Government. Because of that it was suggested that we would take the Companies (No. 2) Bill next week.
This is an outrage and I do not intend to sit down until that is withdrawn. I never looked for an extension or a delay in the taking of the Companies (No. 2) Bill. I intend to have the record of the House put right. I demand that the Cathaoirleach defend me on this point. I have spoken week after week on this issue and I will not be browbeaten by an unruly Leader of the House who refuses to listen or to give any commitment as to what is going on.
Senator O'Toole, will you allow me to ask the Leader of the House to clarify what he has just said?
I said that last week because of the fact that Senator O'Toole wanted time to look at the Government amendments it was decided that the Bill would not be taken this week and that it will be taken next week. I said that last week.
I would like to assure the House that that is utterly untrue. I have asked for these amendments week after week after week, five times in the past two weeks and at least a dozen times in the past couple of months. This kind of behaviour is what brings this House into disrepute.
The Insurance Bill will be taken tomorrow. The matter raised by Senator McCormack has nothing to do with the Order of Business. The Report Stage of the Intoxicating Liquor Bill will not be taken today: it will be taken tomorrow. As far as item No. 17 is concerned, I will pass on the remarks that were made to the Government. I do not think this issue will be brought forward in the near future. Senator Ross asked again about the Companies (No. 2) Bill. It will be taken next week. As regards the remarks passed about changing the Order of Business, my Whip can deal with that. Every effort was made to contact both Senator Ferris's office and Senator O'Toole's office and neither office could be contacted. I will leave that to Senator Ryan to explain. The Order of Business is as I have stated.
My office attempted to contact Senator Ryan's office and it was not possible to do that either. All those things are on the record.
The Order of Business is as I have stated.
I want to say this. Immediately I discovered that there was a question about the Business yesterday morning, I asked my secretary to ring Senator O'Toole's office and Senator Ferris's office to inform the Fine Gael people. Senator Manning's office was aware of it. My secretary said that she got no reply from their offices. That is all I know.
Is the Order of Business agreed?
I beg to move an amendment to the Order of Business.
Senator J. O'Toole has moved an amendment to the Order of Business: "That Item No. 4 be taken today". Is there a seconder?
I wish to second the amendment. I am allowed to speak briefly on the amendment to the Order of Business. Quite simply, we have been promised——
You are speaking for the second time.
But I am seconding an amendment to the Order of Business.
You cannot speak a second time.
On a point of order, a Cathaoirligh, with respect, I am speaking on an amendment which I am seconding, which you called on me to do. I wish to say two sentences on the Companies (No. 2) Bill. We have been promised that it will be taken week after week after week. I do not see any point in believing the Leader of the House.
Senator Ross, are you seconding Senator O'Toole's amendment?
Yes. I formally second it.
Vótáil.
The question is: "That Item No. 4 be taken today." On that question a division has been challenged. Will those Senators calling for a division please stand in their places?
Senators O'Shea, J. O'Toole and Ross stood.
As fewer than five Senators stood in their places I declare the question lost. The names of Senators who stood will be recorded in the Journal of the Proceedings of the Seanad.