The business for today is item No. 1, as agreed, without debate; Second and Committee Stages of item No. 2 from the conclusion of the Order of Business until 4 p.m.; Committee and all Stages up to 7 o'clock, to conclude on item No. 3, the Health (Nursing Homes) Bill, 1989. There will be a sos from 2 o'clock to 2.30 p.m. We will debate item No. 4, the Industrial Relations Bill, 1989, from 7 p.m. to 12 midnight, with a sos at 9 o'clock to 9.30 p.m.
Order of Business.
On the Order of Business, perhaps I could have some clarification from the Leader of the House when he says it is proposed to take Second and Committee Stages of item No. 2, that is, to take them but not necessarily to conclude. There will not be any obstruction on this side of the House, but it is not a closure motion.
Also on the Order of Business, may I compliment the Government and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in particular, for the efforts to date to secure the release of Brian Keenan and to say that on this side of the House — and, I am sure, in the House as a whole — we hope that this long agony will be brought to an end fairly soon and that he and the other hostages will be released. The full voice of this House is behind the efforts of the Minister. Indeed, I also compliment our colleague, Senator Eoin Ryan, on the part he has played in this up to now.
On another matter on the Order of Business, I would like your indulgence simply to say that I know the Government intend to bring in the Broadcasting Bill here on Thursday. I would ask the Government to think again about that. To bring a controversial Bill straight from the other House defeats the whole purpose of the Seanad, which is to allow for a period of calm and reflection. I would urge the Government to postpone this Bill until the autumn, but certainly not to bring it in on Thursday. If it is in this House on Thursday, we will have to oppose it with every effort possible.
I wish to co-operate as fully as possible with the timetable the Government have set for us in the next week or two. Having said that, these benches will not agree to any closure motions on sensitive or important Bills. All the legislation before us is important and deserves full discussion. I do not think, for instance, that the National Treasury Management Agency Bill, 1990, will go more than four hours, looking at it and at the number of possible speakers on it but, if it does I ask the Government to give it the leeway the legislation deserves.
I agree with Senator Manning that this House must be given time to consider the legislation seriously. It must not be put under pressure from the Government because they are in a sudden hurry to get legislation through. We are sitting extremely long hours — I do not mind about that in the slightest — but, if we sit long hours, all the legislation must get full hearing from anybody who wants to speak on it and must get full Committee and Report Stages examination. I would like the Leader of the House to give us an assurance, in order to secure the co-operation of this group, that we will not have any guillotines or closure motions between now and next week. It is not the way the House should be treated.
Secondly, in regard to item No. 1, the first I knew about the item was about five minutes ago when I looked at my Order Paper. Perhaps the Leader of the House could tell us why it is agreed that this should be taken without debate and with whom it was agreed. As far as I know, it was not agreed by us. Item No. 1 seems to me to deserve a slightly more full hearing — not a long hearing but a few minutes hearing — about the televising of the proceedings of the House. I cannot understand why it should be taken without debate.
May I join with Senator Manning in wishing the Government and everybody else the best of luck in trying to solve the Brian Keenan problem. It now seems to be coming to an end and I hope it will have a happy ending today or tomorrow. May I join also in the compliments to Senator Ryan who made a valuable intervention in going out there to try to get a solution to the problem.
The Labour Party would also be very concerned at closure motions. We have not agreed to them and certainly we will be opposing them if they are supplemented.
I want to join with the Leader of the Opposition and Senator Upton in complimenting the Taoiseach, the Government, and in particular the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Collins, on the efforts that have been made over the past number of months to get the release of all the hostages held in the Middle East. Kidnapping is a most horrific crime and the length of time these hostages have been held exceeds anything seen in kidnapping circles anywhere in the world. The conditions in which they have been held have been horrific. I sincerely hope we are now coming to the end of this period in the Middle East, that the reports coming out are correct and that it will be Brian Keenan who will be released shortly. Not only should we compliment the Government and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, but a special compliment should be paid to the family of Brian Keenan for their forebearance during this particular difficult time. They have at all times worked extremely hard both at national and international level to see that Brian is released. Their fortitude in this has been magnificient. Like the other speakers, I would like to compliment Senator Eoin Ryan and the Andrews brothers who have worked extremely hard to see that all hostages will be released, and in particular Brian Keenan.
There are a couple of matters I would like to raise on the Order of Business with the Leader of the House. First, in view of the alarming and, in the words of a Government spokesman, "quite exceptional" increase in the unemployment figures, would the Leader of the House consider making time available for a short debate in relation to what is clearly a worsening situation? If this situation continues, it will be very serious in the autumn.
Secondly, in view of the threatened 700 job losses at the Irish Press would the Leader of the House convey to the Minister for Labour the support of Members of this side and, I am sure, the support of the House for any action he might take in relation to it? Obviously, it is at a very serious stage but other disputes have been brought back from the brink and certainly this would have the support of the Members of this side.
I would like to refer just to one item, No. 1, and to explain why I am referring to it. I do so, I hope, with a little delicacy. I fully appreciate the efforts the Leader of the House is making with the Whips to ensure there is no unseemly dispute on the Order of Business. I think in recent weeks you will agree, a Chathaoirligh, that we have attempted to abide by this in so far as possible. The procedure we have engaged in is that our Whip lets us know in writing the Order of Business. I studied this when I got it late yesterday afternoon and there was no mention of this item on it. I have had no communication from my Whip about Item No. 1. That places me in a considerable difficulty. Perhaps it is a matter of communication between the Whip acting for the Independent group and myself, but I understand Senator Ross has had the same difficulty.
There are two or three points that I would like to make with regard to this item. I am sure the Cathaoirleach would consider it improper for me to make them on the Order of Business so, for that reason, reluctantly I will have to oppose the Order of Business being taken in its present form because I think there should be room for just some slight discussion of this measure, which is historic. In the absence of notification from my Whip I regret to say to the House I will have to oppose it unless we can have some small degree of discussion, which I am sure could be limited. As I say, I have just two or three points but I would like them to be on the record.
With your indulgence, Sir, I would like to propose that a vote of sympathy be extended to the families of the four members of the South Western Regional Fisheries Board who were tragically lost last week off the Cork coast. This is a very unfortunate occurrence. If it were four members of the Garda or of the Army, I think there would be great furore but these men were acting in the course of their duty and were tragically lost. I think it would be appropriate that this House would note the loss and that a vote of sympathy be proposed. I understand an investigation is being undertaken by the Department of the Marine as to what precisely happened. There are many other things I would like to say in relation to the incident, but until such time as the investigation is complete I will let the matter rest. However, I think the House should note the tragedy.
I would like to ask the Leader of the House about paragraph (iii) of item No. 1. I do not understand what "a clean feed of the proceedings to Members" means. Perhaps the Leader of the House could clarify that. Could he also tell me how the contract was awarded to Windmill Lane Pictures Limited?
Support my appeal for a short debate.
Senator Manning referred to item No. 2 on the Order Paper. My understanding is — indeed, it was suggested to me and has been confirmed by other speakers — that this legislation may well not require the length of time we have given it. We have said we will order Second Stage and Committee Stage and see how it progresses.
Senator Manning also congratulated the Government on their efforts to secure the release of Brian Keenan, something which we all support totally.
I have noted what the Senator said in regard to the Broadcasting Bill. In regard to that legislation — indeed, other references were made to the guillotine and so on — it is not my wish to guillotine any measure. I suppose when we talk about a guillotine, we talk in terms of beheading people, as it were; but in a parliamentary context what we are talking about is a means to limit debate on a Bill or a motion. What I am saying is that we are giving ample time, from early in the morning until very late at night, to debate all the legislation we have this week and next week. In fact, this week we have very close to 40 hours of debate and in a normal week we would have something like 11 hours. I suggest that is sufficient time to debate much of the legislation we have.
In regard to what is arguably the most important piece of legislation in the year — the Finance Bill, which has 104 sections — we devoted 15 hours and 20 minutes to it. In regard to the Social Welfare Bill, also a vital piece of legislation with 51 sections, in this House we devoted five hours of debate to it. I do not want to use the word "guillotine". I am saying we are trying to devote as much time as possible to completing the legislation we have before us and, therefore, we are sitting early and finishing late.
Senator Ross referred to a timetable. I would have to say—again, as a further point to support what I am doing—that last week, for example, we did try certain things and, to say the least of it, we were let down and disappointed. I have to make that point. He again referred to the word "guillotine" and he asked about item No. 1, and whether it will be taken without debate. Item No. 1, is a motion and it was referred to by Senator Norris and one or two other speakers also. Incidentally, Senator Norris is correct when he made the point that it could not have been discussed last week by the Whips. It was agreed only last week by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges that this matter would come before us. It appeared on the Order Paper this morning and most Senators would have seen it for the first time this morning. I am not opposed to a debate on it. However, it was suggested by some Members outside this morning that we may have it without debate. But what I will say is this. If we are to have a debate on it, that might take place at the conclusion of business tonight, or if we find a free half hour during the day we can take it then, if that is what Members want. Moving on to Senator Upton, he also raised those points and the question of the Brian Keenan affair, as indeed did Senator Michael Lanigan.
Senator Cosgrave referred to the unemployment figures and the 700 jobs at the Irish Press. It is not obviously appropriate to the Order of Business, so I do not intend to refer to it. Senator Lydon referred to item No. 1 on the Order Paper. I think I made the point clear that it was a Committee on Procedure and Privileges decision. It does not make a difference to me, but it has been discussed by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and all parties have representatives on the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. Therefore, if Senators want a limited debate on it, I am agreeable to it during some part of the day.
Is the Order of Business Agreed?
I did actually move an amendment because I am still not clear as to what the Leader has said——
You indicated you would oppose in certain circumstances but you did not formally move an amendment.
To avoid an amendment, may I say that if the Whips agree I certainly have no objection to it, if that is what the Members of the Seanad want.
Could we have an indication of the time?
As I said, if we find a free half hour today or at midnight tonight for half an hour.
I am making a point of order because what I am concerned about is that it has passed now without debate.
On the basis that the Leader of the House has indicated it can be debated at some time today, is the Order of Business agreed?
If item No. 2 does not go till 4 o'clock there may possibly be time and, if not, at midnight when the proceedings have finished we would come back.
Is the Order of Business agreed? Agreed.
Order of Business agreed to.