Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 7 Dec 1989

Vol. 123 No. 11

Order of Business.

Mr. Lanigan

I am glad that the matter of smog will be brought up on the Adjournment. I am not too sure whether I am a victim of it, or just a victim of the current flu. I think the smog might be a contributory factor to it.

It is intended that we will take item No. 2 from now until 12.30 p.m., and that the Minister will come in no later than 12.30 p.m. to reply to that debate. We will take item No. 1, at 2.30 p.m. to a conclusion, and we will start the Derelict Sites Bill immediately afterwards.

Mar gheall ar an cheist a chuir an Seanadoír Ó Foighil inné i dtaobh an chórais aistriúcháin, bhí mé ag caint le "daoine"— ní amhaín "aon duine"— in a thaobh sin, agus beidh mé ag caint faoi gach lá go dtí go mbeidh sé san Seanad. Ní hé an Seanadóir Ó Foighil an chéad duine ó Chonamara a nochtaigh an fhadhb sin. Bhí an t-iar Sheanadóir Níoclás Ó Conchubhair ina sheasamh gach lá i dtaobh na ceiste seo nuair a bhí sé in a Bhall den Seanad. Tá sé imithe, agus níl an córas aistriúcháin anseo. Tá súil agam nach mbeidh an Seanadóir Ó Foighil imithe sar a mbeidh an córas in situ.

Mr. Manning

I would like to make a number of observations on the Order of Business. Will the Leader of the House let us know if the report of the Committee of Selection will be available today — item No. 3 on the Order of Business? I would also like to inform the House that item No. 2, which we are very glad to debate this morning, will be opposed by us. I will be introducing three amendments to it. They will be introduced by Senator Raftery but I will circulate them. For the information of the House — if I may at this stage — the Fine Gael amendments will be under three headings: (1) to fix the budgetary allocation for official development assistance in 1990 at 0.025 per cent of GNP, the level provided in 1986, thereby reversing the severe reductions imposed in each of the last three years; (2) to undertake that the level of official development assistance will thereafter be increased each year by the equivalent of at least 0.45 per cent of GNP until the total reaches the UN target of 0.7 per cent of GNP annually; (3) to urge the Government to provide that gifts given by firms and individuals to famine relief should enjoy the same charitable status as is enjoyed by gifts given to other charities here. These three amendments will be proposed by the Fine Gael group to item No. 2.

Mr. Norris

I would like to ask the Leader of the House if he can give some indication as to when the Northern Ireland debate, as promised, will take place? I would like also to propose an amendment to the Order of Business — that item No. 44 be taken first. This is the item regarding the awarding of the Nobel Prize to the Dalai Lama. Since this award will be made on Sunday, it seems to me it is very appropriate that it should happen, particularly since we have had the visit of His Holiness the Dalai Lama's personal representative, whom I and a number of other people met last Wednesday.

I move: "That item No. 44 be taken before item No. 2."

Mr. B. Ryan

I do not wish to argue with the Leader of the House, but I would like to make the point that a two-hour debate on developments in the Third World and on hunger is an extraordinarily short period of time. I ask the Leader of the House to confirm that the debate is just a two-hour debate. It is very short, it is even shorter than Private Members' Time. It would spoil what I know is the good intent of the Leader of the House, which is to enable Thursday to be used to discuss issues, if the debate is to be so constrained that only three or four speakers can speak on it.

In order to extract a specific reply from the Leader of the House — and I admit to using a procedural device to do it and he can say what he likes about that — I propose that items Nos. 12, 13, 14 and 15 be taken first. These are Private Members' Bills in the names of the Independent Members. I want to make it clear that all I am proposing is that the House give permission for those Bills to be printed and also, as has been the practice, to allow an order for Second Stage to be made. May I clarify the procedures of the House in case some people do not understand? An order for Second Stage is not a guarantee that a matter can be discussed. It is a date before which it cannot be discussed.

I am not asking for Government time to discuss those Bills. I am not asking for Government support for them. I am simply asking that the normal procedures of this House, which I am used to operating under, would apply, which is that Private Members' Bills can be introduced and be discussed in Private Members' Time. The Bills would take, at most, five minutes. I want to get a specific response from the Leader of the House. If he will accept my amendment, I will be extremely grateful and if he cannot accept it, then he should give an explanation. May I repeat to him something I said yesterday? No matter how big the Government majority the only way this House can operate intelligently and successfully is by goodwill. We should not sacrifice that goodwill.

I move: "That items Nos. 12, 13, 14 and 15 be taken before item No. 2."

Professor Murphy

I would like to support what Senator B. Ryan has said. It seems to be a perfectly reasonable request. It also underlines the fundamental democratic proposition that it is the Oireachtas which legislates and not the Government, as some people seem to think.

Mr. R. Kiely

I would like to ask why item No. 3 is on the Order Paper today? It was on the Order Paper yesterday and I understand there was a meeting of the Committee of Selection held. I would also like to protest that a Minister was kept waiting here last night on a motion for the Adjournment. The Senator who raised the matter did not turn up. The Minister is entitled to an apology. That Senator deprived some other Senator from raising a matter on the Adjournment and she should apologise for not being present.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator is not here.

Mr. Manning

On the question of what happened here last night at 8 p.m., the fault was on our side of the House. We would like to convey to the Minister our regrets in that matter.

Mr. Lanigan

I accept that the expression of regret has been forthcoming, but it should not happen that a Minister is brought in here for the Adjournment debate and then the Senator who proposed the motion does not turn up. It is inexcusable that it should happen, because there were a number of Senators offering at the time.

On the question asked by Senator Kiely on item No. 3, the reason it is on the Order Paper today is because we had a meeting of the Committee of Selection for 4 p.m. yesterday. Every member of the Committee of Selection was notified of that meeting. It appeared on the Order Paper and I notified the House that it would take place. We could have gone ahead at the Committee of Selection and selected the committees.

We had a major argument in this House about committees. The people who purport to represent a certain group did not turn up at the Committee of Selection, but we did them the courtesy of leaving over until this morning the selection of committees, in order to offer them the opportunity to be present. As it turns out, the Labour representation in this House is very close to the representation of Independents. We could have given the Labour Party the opportunity to take the positions on a mathematical basis. We could have given them the opportunity to take their places on the committee which the Independents are purporting to look for.

Mr. Norris

Three equals five — the new mathematics.

Mr. Lanigan

If you want to fight that one, you will have no representation. The Labour Party will take all your representations.

Mr. Norris

Democracy, perestroika, glasnost.

Mr. Lanigan

It is total democracy. You have been the beneficiaries of democracy in this House. It has been based on trust, but what you have given us is a total mistrust.

Mr. Norris

Could I remind the Leader of the House that it is based on the Constitution?

Mr. Lanigan

You may be a constitutional expert but you are not a mathematician.

Mr. Harte

I would like to make it clear that the Labour Party laid no claim to those other committees.

Mr. Lanigan

The Labour Party did not make a claim, but mathematically they had the right to make a claim. Senator Norris asked about item No. 44. It will not be taken today. With regard to Senator Ryan's request on items Nos. 12, 13, 14 and 15, they will not be added to the Order of Business today.

Mr. Norris

Why?

Mr. Lanigan

They will not be added to the Order of Business.

Mr. Norris

Why?

Mr. Ross

Why? You cannot think of a reason.

Mr. Lanigan

The items for discussion today are items Nos. 2 to 12.30 p.m. with the Minister to come in no later than 12.30 p.m. At 2.30 p.m. we take Item No. 1, and we continue then to Second Stage of item No. 4.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator Norris has moved an amendment to the Order of Business, "That item No. 44 be taken before item No. 2". Is the amendment seconded?

Mr. Ross

I second the amendment.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is the amendment being pressed?

Mr. Norris

Yes. In view of the situation obtaining currently in Tibet and the awarding of the Nobel Prize to the Dalia Lama on Sunday, it is being pressed.

Question, "That the amendment be made", put and declared lost.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator Ryan has moved an amendment to the Order of Business, "That items Nos. 12, 13, 14 and 15 be taken before item No. 2". Is the amendment being pressed?

Mr. B. Ryan

Yes.

Question, "That the amendment be made", put and declared lost.

Order of Business agreed to.