The business proposed for today is item No. 1, the Criminal Justice (No. 2) Bill, 1990: Second Stage. Notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, the debate on the Second Stage of this Bill will be brought to a conclusion not later than 2 p.m. today, with the Minister replying not later than 1.45 p.m., and the speech of each Senator not to exceed 20 minutes.
Order of Business.
On the Order of Business yesterday the Leader of the House announced a very detailed list of business which he proposes to bring before us between now and the end of the session. In the interest of not having this business taken altogether in the last two or three days, could he give us for next week a detailed timetable of when each measure will be brought forward and the time he proposes to allocate for each of the very long list of Bills he outlined yesterday?
I am disappointed that business is going to conclude at 2 p.m. today. I think it quite extraordinary. I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that by the calendar this is the longest day of the year but it appears to be the shortest working day for us. It does seem extraordinary when we cannot take serious motions because of a lack of time. We have plenty of time this afternoon. There are quite a number of motions that could be taken during this time. I would like to conclude by asking that the Seanad clock could be examined. It is obviously not telling the right time. I know that we meet every day at 10.30 a.m. or 2.30 p.m. but it regularly shows 10.35 a.m. or 2.35 p.m. when the House commences. Perhaps the whole time situation could be monitored.
I was under the impression that today is 24 hours long like all the others, but let that be as it may. I have the solution to Senator Lanigan's problem about the Portmarnock Golf Club. It is in the form of the Equal Status Bill on the Order Paper in the other House.
It is not a matter for the Order of Business. I will rule you out of order.
When does the Leader of the House propose to take the Broadcasting Bill? When can it be expected to be introduced in the Seanad? Can I also ask the Leader if he would be prepared to reconsider his attitude of yesterday to my request for a debate on poverty, given that 28 per cent of the workforce are now reckoned to be impoverished, not to mention those who are unemployed?
You raised that matter yesterday. I have pointed out to Members before that there shall be no repetition allowed.
I would like to thank the Leader of the House for outlining the programme of legislation yesterday. It is a very useful list. Having thanked him, I would like, however, to express a certain amount of dismay about today's Order of Business. If we have such a heavy programme of legislation why on earth are we getting up at 2 o'clock this afternoon? Why are we not sitting today until a reasonable time?
Secondly, I understand the Leader's reasons for wanting to restrict time to 20 minutes, but I am slightly concerned at the procedures which are creeping in here indicating that the Second Stage ends today at 2 o'clock, as happened with the Bill yesterday. That is a dangerous precedent. I oppose that. I know that at least four or five Members on this side of the House are interested in speaking. I am not sure they will all get in today under the Leader's terms. Having said that, I would ask him to think again about that. Considering that we have such a heavy programme and that the business of the Dáil is in such turmoil at the moment, perhaps he would give us an assurance that no Bill will be guillotined in this House before the end of the session.
I want to support my colleague, Senator Ross. This is the second day in a row in which I have heard the Leader of the House propose a mandatory time for finishing the discussion of legislation. I have to say that I am not used to mandatory time limits for debates on legislation. I am nine years in the House and we managed to do our business with reasonable expedition in those nine years. I do not recall the Leader of the House ever proposing to guillotine legislation two days in a row.
Yesterday there was an important humanitarian reason for rushing the legislation through. Other than worrying about the humanitarian issues of an overworked Minister trying to run two Departments — there is a simple solution to that — I cannot understand why there has to be any shortage of time on important legislation like this. This is an issue that has been raised frequently in this House. My estimation is that if the Minister speaks for 15 or 20 minutes at the beginning, and 15 or 20 minutes at the end, the debate could be reduced to about 12 speakers. The Leader did not give us a single reason for limiting the debate. I am opposed to either time limits on speeches or a time limit on this debate unless the Leader can give me convincing reasons for such action. As of now, I want to give notice that I am opposing the Order of Business.
I support the Independent Senators who have spoken in relation to the guillotine that now seems about to be imposed by the Leader of the House in relation to Second Stage of the Bill dealing with the death penalty. Certainly that does not seem to be a matter that was agreed by the Whips. The death penalty legislation we have before us is the result of a very long campaign and, indeed, controversy. It has been on our Order Paper for years. It would not be appropriate at this time for the Leader of the House to tell us, out of the blue that the matter must be finished by a certain time today. There is not that much urgency about it. We have been waiting for this debate for a long time, and there are many Members who would be delighted to contribute to it.
Secondly, I am delighted that the Leader of the House has indicated a menu of measures of legislation that will be coming before the House before the end of the summer session. It is appropriate, as Senator Manning said, that we get a reasonable and approximate timetable for those Bills coming before us. That is the way the orderly business of the Seanad should be conducted. That would be most welcome to the Senators on these benches.
Finally, on the matter raised yesterday and today by my colleague, Senator Upton — the Combat Poverty report came out yesterday and deals with the large number of people who are living on the poverty line — I would like to ask the Leader to reconsider that matter in the context of what happened yesterday when the Garda declared a large part of the north inner city a "no go" area. I think the matter deserves to be discussed.
It does not arise on the Order of Business. I pointed that out to your colleague.
It is interesting to hear Senator B. Ryan getting up and saying that the business of the House was orderly for the past nine years.
That is a complete misrepresentation.
On the Order of Business he suggested that things are happening now that did not happen before. Three Senators have now mentioned the fact that business has not been ordered properly. The business has been ordered properly. The Whips have met and decided what business is being taken today. The Whips organise business. If the Labour Party and the Independents are not in contact with the Whips, that is disgraceful. The Whips decided the time business would conclude today. Yesterday, the Whips decided at what time business should conclude. If the Whips are not in touch with the Independent Senators it is disgraceful.
I have listened for the last quarter of an hour to people saying they have no time to conduct the Order of Business. If we had far fewer sporadic interruptions which continue week in week out we would proceed faster. I am sure people in the House have noticed that from this side there have been relatively few interruptions. I would suggest that every motion on the Order Paper is very important. We do not have to stand up, day in day out, saying "I want this motion discussed today". There are many things that I would like to have addressed. I hope it will not take three or four years — if we are around for that time — to get to them. Surely we should have the time to debate what we want to do. I am sure that if we were to quantify it, on a time and motion study, we would find that we spend hours on what I would consider unnecessary interventions. I would hope that this would be the last day of such interruptions.
Thank you, Senator, for a valuable contribution.
Senator Manning raised the timetable for next week. Next week it is proposed to take the Health (Nursing Homes) Bill, the Industrial Credit (Amendment) Bill and Committee Stage of the Criminal Justice (No. 2) Bill. That is the intention at this time. Something else that I am not sure of may come through the Dáil but those three items will be taken next Wednesday and Thursday.
Senator Norris referred to the point that it was a short day, as it were. It is not my wish to restrict debate on any Bill. I want to assure you that I have gone out of my way on many occasions to get debates on South Africa and the Adelaide Hospital, etc., that were important to Senators. It is not my wish at any time to restrict debate. Yesterday's business was agreed by the Whips — the three hour debate on the Clinical Trials Bill. Today's business was agreed by the Whips. Therefore, I have to work in accordance with those instructions.
I do not think I would agree to that.
Those are the instructions I have received. I have no doubt that my people are telling me the facts. Senator Upton referred to the Broadcasting Bill. I cannot say when we will have it. Obviously, it will depend on when it is passed in the Dáil but my information is that as soon as it is passed there we will have it. As I said yesterday, while I would welcome some form of a debate on the poverty issue, because of the long list of legislation before us, I do not think I can take a debate on poverty.
Senator B. Ryan referred to mandatory matters. I repeat what I said earlier. It is not my wish to restrict debate on any issue and Senator B. Ryan knows that. I have to come back and stress what the Whips agreed. Certainly, I do not want a conflict with any Senator on that kind of issue. As far as I am concerned, they can roll on until 7 o'clock this evening, but the Whips have agreed on certain times, and that is what I stand by. Senator Costello also referred to that. I have to remind him that he has a member of his own party attending the Whips' meetings. Again, it comes back to the Whips. He also referred to the poverty debate.
Senator Ross was pleased with the list of business he got yesterday. I stress again, the terms of the Order of Business are agreed in advance. Senator Lanigan made a point which perhaps was not relevant but was supportive, as was Senator Jackman, in regard to the business for today.
Is the Order of Business agreed?
No.
The question is: "That notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders the debate on Item No. 1 shall be brought to a conclusion not later than 2 p.m. today, the speech of each Senator not to exceed 20 minutes and the Minister to be called to reply not later than 1.45 p.m."
Question put.
Vótáil.
Will those Senators calling for a division please rise in their places?
Senators Norris, Ross, Hederman and B. Ryan rose.
As fewer than five Senators rose in their places I declare the question is carried.
Question declared carried.
Order of Business agreed to.