I am wondering if the House is going to take off, or is it in my ears?
Order of Business.
That is the death watch beetle.
Something to do with wildlife.
Crickets.
It is proposed to take Items Nos. 1 and 2. We will discuss Anglo-Irish affairs on Thursday of next week.
First of all I am very pleased that the Leader of the House has been able to arrange the debate on Anglo-Irish affairs for next week. On the Order of Business, I would like to put a proposal to the House which I would like the House to consider. A Chathaoirligh, I beg your indulgence for a moment. Probably the biggest change this country will face will result from the implementation of the single European market in 1992 and it will affect every single aspect of Irish industry. My feeling is that the public is not very well prepared for this. I wonder if this House could find some way to provide either a series of debates or perhaps invite in distinguished people from the various sectors of Irish industry to provide the forum within which this debate could take place. I think it would be a vital public service to the country. I am simply making the proposal now and I would like if it could be received in a fairly open spirit by the other parties in the House.
I would like to make a comment on the Order of Business today and ask the Leader of the House a couple of questions. First of all, I would like to thank him for agreeing to a debate on Anglo-Irish affairs. It is probably in order that an Independent Member of the House should congratulate the Leader of the House on the way the business of the House on the whole has been run during this session. We have got through a lot of legislation. Secondly, it is only fair to say that the Leader of the House has been extremely accommodating, maybe sometimes a little slowly, in having debates on subjects like the Irish Constitution and Anglo-Irish affairs. I genuinely think this is to be commended and it does the House nothing but good.
I should like to point out one thing about the Order of Business today and yesterday. Legislation is initiated in this House, which is a very good thing but we seem to be a little short of legislation in the House now. Yesterday evening, in fact, the House adjourned because there was no legislation left. In that context, I would like to ask the Leader of the House whether he would consider taking Item No. 13 which is a Bill to abolish the death penalty. On the Independent benches we have certain Bills which, if the Leader of the House does not accommodate us, will quite simply not be taken and will not be debated. The abolition of the death penalty is one. Senator Ryan has another one which it is important that this House should take a decision. This has been on the Order Paper in one way or another for five or six years.
What I would like to know is whether the Government are in favour of the abolition of the death penalty or whether the Government are actually against the abolition of the death penalty. At the moment they are sitting on the Statute Book. I should remind Senator Mooney, if he is here, that were it in force in England in 1974 the Birmingham Six, whose cause he champions, would in fact have been hanged at this stage. They would have suffered the death penalty. In that context it is important. The death penalty is on the Statute Book and I ask the Leader of the House to tell us whether the Government have a stand to make on this and whether he is actually prepared to give time to debate, not necessarily to pass, Private Members' Bills when there is no other legislation to be discussed which is Government legislation. In general, I would like to say I am very grateful for the time given to debate those motions which the Opposition and the Independents have been in favour of talking about.
I welcome the fact that the Leader of the House has committed the House to a debate on Anglo-Irish affairs next Thursday. Has he any suggestion on what the format will be, what the length of time for each speaker will be and whether the Taoiseach is coming in? I think he is the man to whom we want to speak on this matter.
May I associate myself with Senator Ross's remarks and compliment the Leader of the House on the number of items of business of relevant interest he has arranged to have discussed here? He is now suspicious that I am going to spring something on him, as I am being so complimentary. However, I want to make a request to the House. I know in the previous Seanad there was a provision for invitations to distinguished visitors to speak to this House. I am not quite sure of the present status of that provision. A very eminent international figure will be in this country in two weeks time, the President of the African National Congress. I think it would be quite fitting if we were to invite the President of the African National Congress to address this House. It is not unprecedented. We had a provision for such an invitation. I suggest, respectfully, to the House, given the present deteriorating situation in South Africa, that it would be a very useful idea to invite the President of the African National Congress to address this House.
I am sorry. We had a whistle a while ago. Now we have a kind of banshee.
They are probably telling us something.
They tried to before and did not succeed, so I doubt if that will change.
Whatever is dying out there I do not think it is the Seanad.
Senator Ryan proposed that an invitation should be sent to the President of the ANC to address the House. I agree with his sentiments on this matter. The African National Congress should be allowed to address as many fora as they possibly can throughout the world because of the terribly repressive measures which have been imposed recently on the majority community and their supporters in Africa. It is horrific that freedom of speech and freedom of association and now the freedom to aid the majority community out there have been taken away by this very repressive Government.
I think the invitation should be left to the CPP to discuss. I have no objection to it but it is a matter for the CPP. I do not think it is for me to decide.
On that point, could I say that our group would support the invitation were it to be extended?
So would we.
Whatever we say here I think it should be left to the CPP to decide. Regarding next week's debate on Anglo-Irish affairs I think the Whips should meet. I am not running away from the question asked by Senator Ferris. That noise is probably a drill from the Chamber inside. We decided when we moved into this room that we would allow people to work there because the longer they work the sooner we will return to the Chamber.
We realised about ten minutes ago that it was a drill.
My head is a little more dense than those of certain other people. So, we should leave the Whips to get together on the format of the Anglo-Irish debate. Senator Ross suggested that we should debate Item No. 13. I accept what he says as being what he said.
On the question of Senator Manning's suggestion about the implications for industry and so forth of the Single European Act, we had a debate here on the EC reports on developments in the EC since 1986. That would have given everybody an opportunity to raise the implications of the Single European Act — the single market. Unfortunately, during that debate only five Senators spoke. We had two Ministers in on that debate and only five Senators took the opportunity to speak.
I think Senator Manning is on another side. He is quite right regarding the unknown out there in the industrial world.
If I could reiterate what I said, the single market is part of the Single European Act. We had an opportunity here, which the other House did not have, to discuss the reports from the European Communities from January 1986 which included the legislation and the debate which took place on the implications of the Single European Act. There will be a 30th report which will be dated January 1987 and we can discuss it in due course.
On a point of order, I asked the Leader of the House two questions and he has not answered either of them. First, are the Government in favour of the abolition of hanging and, secondly, is he prepared to give time to discuss it?
There were two questions. The first question Senator Ross asked was in relation to the death penalty. He did not mention hanging. I accept the question. I agree with the Senator that legislation is a little short at present. I addressed this matter yesterday with the Taoiseach and with the Chief Whip in the other House. I hope we will not be short of legislation. One of the problems we have had over the past number of months is the fact that the Dáil has been debating the budget and the Finance Bill. That has meant that not much has been coming to them.
I have not heard a single point of relevance from the Leader of the House to the two questions I asked. Are the Government in favour of the abolition of hanging and will the Leader of the House give time for a debate on it? Please, could the Leader of the House give me an answer to that?
I thought that once I concluded, I had concluded.
I am not being frivolous. I think the Leader of the House should address himself to the two questions which I asked. I may not find the answers satisfactory but I think he could give me the courtesy of a reply to them.
Senator Ross, you can raise the questions another day. Senator Lanigan has replied.
Why should I raise them another day? That is absolutely ridiculous. I have raised them today. If I am not going to get an answer another day there is no point in my raising them.
Order of Business agreed to?
No.
The question is: "That the Order of Business be agreed to".
On a point of order I am going to call a division on the Order of Business if the Leader of the House does not give me an answer. I do not want to delay the House any more. I just want a simple answer, yes or no, to those two questions.
Are you moving an amendment to the Order of Business?
I move: "That Item No. 13 be included in the Order of Business."
Is the amendment seconded?
Yes.
Senators
Vótáil.
The question is: "That Item No. 13 be included in the Order of Business." On that question a division has been challenged. Will those Senators calling for a division please rise in their places?
Senators Ross, B. Ryan, Ferris, Harte and O'Shea stood.
The division will now proceed.
Question put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 16; Níl, 18.
Tá
- Bradford, Paul.
- Bulbulia, Katharine.
- Connor, John.
- Daly, Jack.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Harte, John.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Kelleher, Peter.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Manning, Maurice.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- Reynolds, Gerry.
- Ross, Shane P.N.
- Ryan, Brendan.
Níl
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Cullimore, Séamus.
- de Buitléar, Éamon.
- Doherty, Michael.
- Eogan, George.
- Fitzgerald, Tom.
- Fitzsimons, Jack.
- Haughey, Seán F.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Kiely, Rory.
- Lanigan, Mick.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- McGowan, Patrick.
- McKenna, Tony.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Mulroy, Jimmy.
- O'Callaghan, Vivian.
- Ryan, William.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Ross and B. Ryan; Níl, Senators W. Ryan and S. Haughey.
Question declared lost.
Order of Business agreed to.