It is intended to take Item Nos. l, 2, 4 and 5 today and that we take Items Nos. 4 and 5 commencing at 6.30 p.m.
Order of Business.
I want to thank the Government side for allowing us to take in Government time Item No. 1 which is the Fine Gael Private Members' Bill and also to thank the Government side for taking this Bill at such speed after its passing in the other House.
On a point of order, it has been outside my range of experience in this House to deal with a Private Members' Bill and I wonder how, procedurally, it will be taken through the House. I would like to have some explanation of that from you perhaps or from the Leader of the House; I am not sure for whom the question is appropriate.
Secondly, I thought we had got out of the habit of the one-day-a-week phenomenon but we are back again it seems to the Government party ordering business for one day of the week only. I think it is a disgraceful misuse of the House that it is in this sense turned on and off at will. There is plenty of legislation to get through. The Government keep saying they do not have time to get the business through and here we are working on a basis of one day a week. It is not good enough and I would like a comprehensive explanation from the Leader of the House. We are back again to asking the questions we were asking months ago: Where do we go from here? What is the programme of legislation? We are starting to flounder again very early. I would like a comprehensive reply from the Leader of the House on the matter.
May I ask the Leader of the House at what time he proposes to take Items Nos. 4 and 5? There are two hours remaining.
May I ask the Leader of the House when he anticipates Item No. 3 to be taken, the Insurance Bill, 1987, now that it has returned from the other House? May I also ask him if in view of the deteriorating situation in the bakery trade he intends allowing time in this House for discussion of that important matter?
I would like to welcome the decision of the Leader of the House to take Item No. 1 first today. It is a very sensible precedent which I hope in future we will follow, taking a Private Members' Bill in this time. I hope the Leader of the House will, as a result, give consideration to other Private Members' Bills such as that on capital punishment and others put down by the Independent Members. I endorse what Senator O'Toole said. It seems strange we are now lapsing back into one-day-a-week sittings. As we are taking a Private Members' Bill today, if the Government are short of legislation in this House, perhaps the Leader of the House would consider taking on Thursdays some of the serious legislation which has been put forward by the Independents which we have not been able to take up to now, because one day a week is not enough for this House to sit.
I want to ask the Leader of the House if he has any idea at what time Item No. 2 will be taken? It is a Report Stage and, therefore, would not be nearly as lengthy as Committee Stage. It seems it is something that will be taken if we have time and will not be taken if we do not have time. It is an important Bill on which a number of amendments, Government and otherwise, have been put down. I would like to know if it is intended to take it today.
I endorse the comments by my Independent colleagues and say how much I regret the fact that we are meeting apparently only one day a week. The Leader of the House and I had an interesting public discussion about the role of the Seanad in which he was eloquent in his defence of the Seanad. His eloquence would be even more heavily underlined if he ensured that the Seanad met as frequently as it did before now. It is a matter of great regret to me that this Leader of the House who defended us so eloquently less than a week ago is now letting us lapse back into the bad habit of infrequent meetings or once-a-week sittings which are nothing more than a token gesture.
I support Senator Ross in saying that if the Government cannot produce legislation this back bench here can produce all the legislation they need provided we are allowed to publish it. A certain unpublished Bill becomes increasingly relevant as more and more disclosures about blatant conflicts of interests begin to appear. It would be very helpful for the image of this House if we could discuss legislation and it would be very helpful for the image of politics if we could discuss legislation about Members' conflicts of interest which are becoming a serious concern to all of us.
On the point of order raised by Senator O'Toole — as Item No. 1 is a Fine Gael Bill, Senator Manning will be the Member in charge of the Bill going through the House. This is similar to the Minister's role when a Government Bill is going through.
Where will he sit?
Where he is sitting now. If you valued your feet as much as I valued mine when I was there, you would be glad to be sitting.
I am very keen to see the proprieties of the House respected. It demeans Senator Manning's position I think in some sense by not allowing him to sit in the chair of authority.
There will be a Minister present for this legislation.
(Interruptions.)
What would happen if a Progressive Democrats Bill were somehow miraculously to pass in the other House and it then came here? What would happen then?
We will cross that bridge when we come to it.
(Interruptions.)
Senator Lanigan, the Leader of the House, to reply.
A number of points have been made. Item No. 2 has been mentioned specifically. It would appear that Item No. 1 will take up most of the time today, so I doubt very much if we will be taking Item No. 2. If it is the wish of the House that we do not start Report Stage I am agreeable to that; we could leave it over. There was a question asked beforehand about Item No. 13. I can guarantee Senator Fennell that I will have a full reply on that item before next week.
Questions were asked as to whether we were going to sit one or two days. It was suggested that we were getting back to the old days of irregular and one-day sittings. I can guarantee the House there is plenty of legislation coming forward, that we will be sitting two days and that we are not in need of any Bills from the backbenchers as they call themselves today to keep the House going. We have the Report Stage of the Insurance Bill to debate; it will more than likely be coming up next week. We have the Local Government (Water Pollution) (Amendment) Bill, 1989 and the Bord na gCapall (Dissolution) Bill, 1988 to come and there is a number of very important items before the House. We will be sitting two days. We should leave the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Bill, 1988 over and take the Judicial Separation and Family Law Reform Bill, 1987 as far as we can today, as well as the motion.
If it is the wish of the House we could start Items Nos. 4 and 5 at 6 p.m. rather than 6.30 p.m. which would give us two hours because we have to take the matter on the Adjournment at 8 p.m. Somebody was talking to me when Senator Ferris was asking me a question and I did not catch what he said.
I had asked what time we are taking Items Nos. 4 and 5 and you have suggested 6 p.m. to 8 p.m.
I did not get a reply on my query about the bakery situation.
There is a debate on the Adjournment this evening.
That relates to a specific case in County Tipperary. I am glad to see my colleague Senator Byrne raising it but does the Leader of the House think that the subject warrants a debate for a specific length of time here in this House, perhaps next week?
I would again refer Senator Hogan to the rule of the House under which he can attempt to bring that motion forward in his own name. I will talk to him afterward about whether we will have this debate next week.
Order of Business agreed to.