It is intended to take Items Nos. 1 and 4 today — Item No. 4 to be taken between 6.30 p.m. and 8 p.m. The report of the Committee of Selection will be taken at a time after the committee have met; I presume it will probably be at 4.30 p.m. It is just a matter of reporting back on the Committee of Selection. Tomorrow, it is intended to take Items Nos. 5 and 2. Item No. 5 will be taken at 10.30 a.m. The Minister will come in at 1 p.m. We will take Item No. 2 from 3 p.m., with the Minister to come in at 5 p.m.
Order of Business.
On the Order of Business, I do no want to be disruptive or unco-operative today. I appreciate the steps that are being taken behind the scenes to improve the ordering of business and the conduct of business in the House. I certainly would not do anything to pre-empt what is happening there, but give it my full support.
However, I am greatly concerned that on Item No. 1 today the Government amendments arrived only this morning. They are significant amendments to a fairly important Bill. That creates a problem for the spokespersons in the various parties who have to do their research and prepare for a Bill which is as important as this Bill. I would like to place on record my concern about the matter. I ask the Leader of the House — I do not blame him for this — to convey to the Goverment Whip our concern that Government amendments, and all amendments, should be in proper time so that people can give them proper research and consideration.
I agree with what Senator Manning said about the improvements in the Order of Business and also welcome the Cathaoirleach's own words when he spoke about the possibility of reform of the Seanad. I am sure he will have the co-operation of Members on the Independent benches on this. If I could just draw the Cathaoirleach's attention to the fact that I feel — I think a number of people would also feel — that with regard to difficulties that have traditionally been caused on the Order of Business, this is largely because there is no provision whatever for any form of Question Time. There is a natural tendency when people wish to raise matters to put them down as motions, and then to try to see by questioning if they cannot be raised. It is a kind of illicit Question Time.
I would also like to ask a question which is related to the parliamentary debates which are published. I was a little surprised and concerned to notice that Senator Donie Cassidy's contribution on the Adjournment is not included in the printed volume I received this morning. The sitting ended at 11.05 p.m. so I do not think it is the case that it went into a new day. I wonder if you could have some information on that?
I welcome the fact that the Leader of the House has given an undertaking that the important motion on Cambodia will be taken tomorrow. I will not be arguing with that but I regret a little that it has not been found possible to take it today, because the vote in the United Nations is taking place tomorrow. If we wished to have any impact on our policy on the United Nations, surely today would be the day to have the debate rather than tomorrow when we will simply be reacting to events which will be taking place either simultaneously with our debate or that would have taken place before we have actually had an opportunity to discuss that. In effect, we will be talking very much in a political vacuum without any power or influence.
I also very much welcome the fact that Item No. 4 will be taken with regard to the very important developments in eastern Europe.
The final matter on which I seek some information from the Leader of the House is that I raised last Thursday an item which is today Item No. 40 on the Order Paper. It concerns the lack of response of the Irish Government to the decision in the European Court of Human Rights, which lack of response makes their position difficult in attacking the continuance of the British derogration which was announced yesterday——
Senator Norris, please conclude because you are making a speech for the last number of moments and I will not allow you to do it again. I wanted to see if you would realise you were in breach of Standing Orders.
I accept your ruling, but if I could conclude by saying — and this is directly relevant to the Order of Business — that the Leader of the House indicated that he would seek some information for me from the Government and that if this reply is either not forthcoming or not satisfactory I will be moving an amendment to the Order of Business today in order to take Item No. 40 first.
If I understood the Leader of the House correctly, he indicated that the NESC debate would be taken tomorrow at 3 o'clock with the Minister coming in a 5 p.m. That implies a conclusion of the debate on this subject. That is what I want to make clear here, because to me that would be totally unsatisfactory. On this side of the House we have at least five further speakers on that report. I would like to say to the Leader of the House, particularly in view of events in recent days that this report has assumed even greater consequences and greater importance for this country. We on the Fine Gael benches have five more speakers to contribute and two hours would not be sufficient to accommodate them. It is reasonable to assume that there are speakers from the other parties in the House on this most important subject. Therefore, I would have to say, that if it is the intention of the Leader of the House to conclude the NESC debate with the Minister's contribution at 5 p.m. tomorrow evening, it is unacceptable.
I support an observation made by Senator Norris in relation to the debate on Cambodia. It is totally unsatisfactory that this debate will be taking place hours after our Government vote in the United Nations on this issue. I am dissatisfied with the time of this matter. It could have been better arranged.
Before I raise a matter on the Order of Business, as you have just ruled a member of the Independent group to be in breach of Standing Orders by making a speech on the Order of Business, I would like you to indicate the particular Standing Order which was in breach. It is something which I will raise again, perhaps. I am not aware of the Standing Order.
You are in danger of being in breach of Standing Orders yourself if you do not conclude.
The point I make is that there is a long-standing tradition——
That would not be anything new.
There is a long-standing tradition of speeches on the Order of Business. It goes back to the foundation of the Seanad. On the question of the motion on Cambodia, I rush to the defence of the Leader of the House who in discussing this matter earlier in the week indicated to us that the reason he would wish the motion to be taken on Thursday morning was because of the time lapse between ourselves and New York, in that it might well be disposed of here before it came to be discussed in the United Nations, and that he would take particular care to have information brought forward.
On the question of committees, I would like to ask the Leader of the House if he could outline for us a number of points which are giving the Independent group some concern. First, I will refer to Standing Order 78 (3) by which this House may set up committees on its own, and also Standing Order 60 by which it may set up select committees. We would wish to be advised, first, whether in fact the Leader of the House envisages the House deciding on the committees which it will form. Also, we are very much aware of the fact that decision on committees and joint committees are taken by a committee which sits with the Government Whip of the other House. As we are the only group in this House that is not represented in the decision-making forum, we ask the Leader of the House how he can arrange for us to have an input into that committee where we believe we have a right of representation, although it is not covered by Standing Orders.
On the Order of Business, I would like to ask the Leader of the House when the Government will be in a position to have debated in this House the report of the commission on the funding and financing of the health services. This is a matter of major concern to all our citizens, and in particular those who are in need of health care and, indeed, to those who are engaged in the provision of health care. I believe, therefore, that the Leader of the House and the Government should see to it immediately that this matter is debated in this House as quickly as possible.
I have no intention of disturbing the extraordinary outburst of harmony which has apparently taken over all sides of this House. Indeed, if there are discreet things going on behind the scenes I do not wish to disturb them either. Indeed, I would welcome them.
I have one particular problem and that is on item No. 8 on the Order Paper — the Abolition of the Death Penalty. Last week — I think it was last week but it may have been the week before — I asked the Leader of the House whether he was prepared to take this Bill and he told me to ask him about it in private. I asked him about it in private, and he told me to ask him about it in the House. I suspect this circle might come to an end today when I now ask him whether he might consider first of all giving Government time to it, and, secondly, giving Government support to this Bill. It is obviously the intention of the Government, and of the Progresive Democrats in particular, to support the abolition of the death penalty. Indeed, I should say this to him: I would be happy to introduce it for him. As the Minister is obviously having difficulty drafting this, I would be happy also to accept amendments from the Government side. While I do not doubt the integrity of the Government in promising that this Bill will be introduced at some stage, I think it might help this House if it were the first Bill to be introduced in the Seanad this session.
In a public response to a private question, legislation will be introduced by the Government in relation to the abolition of the death penalty. That is a guarantee given by the Government to the other House and to this House.
A solemn promise?
It is not made in a solemn way or it is not a solemn promise, but there will be legislation forthcoming from the Government on this issue which is of grave concern to a number of people. That is a fact. On Senator Kennedy's application to have the report on the health services brought before the House, if Fine Gael wish to bring that forward as their Private Members' business it is quite in order with me——
Government business, I suggest.
——there is absolutely nothing I can do about it. I will relay the request to the proper sources. I think perhaps after the Health Estimates come out he may not be as forceful in his demands to have a debate as he would have been beforehand.
With regard to committees, the Committee of Procedure and Privileges dictates what happens in this House. Senator O'Toole can raise the matter of the committees of the House or joint committees at the Committee of Procedure and Privileges. That is the proper place to have that matter dealt with. It is not a matter for the Leader of the House.
Regarding the timing of the debate on Cambodia, there has been pressure on this side of the House to have such a debate. The first available time we could have that debate is tomorrow. It was a request from the House. It is an agreed debate. The timing of the debate was forwarded to the Whips of each group last Friday and the content of the motion was issued to each of the groups. Even though it might appear as if it is irrelevant because of a vote which will take place in the United Nations, I do not think that is so. This House is being afforded the opportunity to discuss in an open manner what is happening in that country. Basically, I cannot dictate when the United Nations order their business. All I can do is respond to requests to have particular items debated. The first opportunity we had to debate this item is tomorrow morning and the debate will take place then.
On a matter of information, there was a request last week that we should have a debate on matters in the Middle East. That has been arranged to take place on Thursday of next week. Again, I think that if we can have an all-party wording on that, fair enough, but if not it will be introduced under my name.
The matter of question time has been raised. That is not a matter for me. The situation is that the Committee on Procedure and Privileges can discuss the suggestion that we should have a question time. That can be raised by anybody at the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. We can have the discussion then and come to a conclusion on that.
In today's business we have a Bill in Committee on which there are Government amendments which were late coming in. I would generally agree with the sentiments expressed by Senator Manning. I just want to say that we needed to have that Bill before the House. It is an important Bill and I felt we should take it at the earliest opportunity. In general, I assure the House that amendments will not be foisted on the House on the day on which a Bill is put before us on Committee Stage.
There are two matters in relation to health which you omitted to reply to and I am entitled to ask for a reply. One was on the omission of Senator Cassidy's contribution on the Adjournment. The second was Item No. 40. I would remind him that I intend moving——
I will ask the Leader of the House to reply to the two matters.
I apologise, I missed dealing with those matters. There were two items. One item raised by Senator Howard, I said no later than 5 o'clock tomorrow evening, that does not mean that the debate has to finish at 5 o'clock, but I am suggesting that we conclude business tomorrow at 5 o'clock. May I confer with the Minister, and I will have a reply for Senator Norris tomorrow morning on Item No. 40?
I wish to inform Senator Norris that the Adjournment matter in question was withdrawn. That is why it did not appear.
Order of Business agreed to.