I take it there is no objection to sitting until we finish Nos. 5 and 6 on the Order Paper?

Senator Ó Maoláin is wrong in taking that. We have had no motion to sit late. It should have been put down earlier today.

We have no objection to finishing Nos. 4 and 5, if possible.

Nos. 5 and 6.

No. 4 stands unfinished.

Nos. 4 and 5.

Does that mean all Stages?

I do not agree to that.

We could finish Second Stage of the Pawnbrokers Bill.

Could we finish the Second Stage and leave Committee Stage over?

That is entirely a matter for the House.

Considering it has been there since the 18th century, it can afford to wait a few more days.

Can we not have an ordinary adjournment like the Dáil either at 10 o'clock or 10.30 p.m., resume in the morning as the Dáil does at 10.30 a.m., finish at 5 o'clock, and carry on in some normal way for whatever number of weeks it will take us to finish the business, so that the people will know we are giving reasonable attention to what we are required to do?

They know that already.

If we did that, although it probably will not happen in the lifetime of the present Seanad that allowances to members will be examined again, a Senator could not make the statement that he finds himself getting the equivalent of £5,000 a year because of the small number of hours we sit. Let us act like any other House and things will be better all round.

Senators do not appreciate the difficulty we have in arranging business because of other commitments Ministers have. That is the reason I am asking the House to finish these two Bills tonight——

No.

——whatever about the Transport Bill.

Whatever about the Transport Bill! The Senator surely is not serious in suggesting at 10.5 p.m. that we should finish two more Bills tonight?

We cannot do the Transport Bill.

Have we not a Money Bill to deal with and must we not take it within a certain time?

The Minister for Justice.

No.

Is it clear what we are going to do.

Will you elucidate the position for me? I thought Standing Orders provide that we adjourn at 10 o'clock, unless a motion is put down earlier for a late sitting.

I understand it is not a Standing Order, but practice.

Are we conforming to practice now?

Not at the moment. We are already five minutes over the time.

So far as I remember, in a situation like this, the House did not object to sitting a little late to finish the business ordered. I would ask Senator Murphy to facilitate us in this matter.

We have no objection to completing the Second Stage of the Pawnbrokers Bill. The Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1964, puts into operation certain provisions made in the Budget, and I think we could deal with it tonight, but not the Transport Bill. We can deal with it and the Appropriation Bill next week.

Quite obviously, even if we finish the Second Stage of the Pawnbrokers Bill tonight, we will not be able to deal with the Committee Stage. If it will help, I will agree to finish the Second Reading of the Pawnbrokers Bill, and then adjourn. I do not think we should be asked to rush other Bills through.

What about the Social Welfare Bill?

I am very anxious, if at all possible, that the Seanad should facilitate me by giving me all Stages of the Pawnbrokers Bill tonight. For a variety of technical reasons, it is very important that pawnbrokers can get on immediately with the printing of the various new books and forms prescribed under the Bill. May I say it was through no fault of mine that the Bill has been there for a long time but mainly through pressure of business in the Dáil. I was anxious to bring it to the Seanad long ago to give the Seanad an adequate opportunity of discussing it.

The Minister could have introduced it here.

If some thought had been taken, the Civil Liability Bill and the Pawnbrokers Bill could have been introduced here, then sent to a Joint Committee of the two Houses, and finished long ago. It really is not fair to ask us to put through a Bill which, as Senator Fitzpatrick has said, deals with legislation which has been there for 200 years. If there is any urgency about the Social Welfare Bill, we are prepared to deal with it. I must say I cannot see any urgency about the Pawnbrokers Bill, with all respect to the Minister. My experience of Ministers of all Parties is that everything they have in hand is urgent, but except for public order and public finances, nothing is really very urgent.

I should like to support Senator Murphy's suggestion that we finish the Second Stage of the Pawnbrokers Bill and then adjourn.

Is it possible that we could sit tomorrow and take the remaining stages of the Pawnbrokers Bill?

We have no objection.

That does not give us time to put down amendments.

It would clarify things if someone let us know if he wants to put down amendments or is only codding.

Is "codding" a Parliamentary expression?

Obviously there is not agreement. The Minister to conclude on the Second Stage of the Pawnbrokers Bill.

What is the agreement?

There is no agreement.

Are we going to finish this Bill and have another one rushed through the House?

So far as I can ascertain, the House has agreed to finish the Second Stage of the Pawnbrokers Bill and then adjourn. There is no agreement about tomorrow.

I would ask Senator Murphy, if the House has no objection, if he would agree to take the Social Welfare Bill before we adjourn.

If the Senator had asked me that five minutes ago, I could have consulted my colleagues.

What time do we meet tomorrow?

It has not been agreed yet that we will meet tomorrow. It is suggested that it would not give time to put down amendments to the Pawnbrokers Bill.

There is no objection to taking the Social Welfare Bill. I presume there will be no debate on it and, therefore, I would not object to taking it tonight after the Second Stage of the Pawnbrokers Bill.