It is intended to take Items Nos. 1, 2, 3 and to resume the Fianna Fáil motion. There are two hours left for that motion this evening.
Order of Business.
I would like to make a few comments. It is some time since we met. We meet after probably the most damaging and disruptive session in the history of the Seanad. We are all aware that the standing and perception of the House has been damaged. Serious questions have been raised about our existence. In those circumstances I, and I think everybody else on this side of the House, would have expected today that the Government side would come in with a clear, defined programme of work for the coming weeks with proposals for change and with clear ideas as to the way in which the Seanad can begin to restore confidence in itself. To expect that would be the minimum we could ask.
Unfortunately, the minimum has been too much to expect. There is no programme of work. We do not know what is coming up over the coming weeks. We do not know what legislation we are going to get, when we will get it or whether we will get any legislation at all. I have to say, in fairness, that this is not the fault of the Government Leader in the House or the Whip. It is the fault of the Government. Clearly there is no legislation coming up over the coming weeks. That is what I believe to be the case.
Certainly, there has been a very retrograde step in that this House now is not getting Bills in the way it did in the past or in the way in which the Government initiated various Bills here. I really want to know whether the Government are serious about the situation in this House, and about giving us a defined programme of work. Are they serious about using this House in the way in which it was used in the past to start discussion on Bills here? I want to know if the Leader of the House is making a serious case to the Government Whip and to the Government about the great disquiet which all of us on this side of the House feel about the current situation.
I want to raise a number of other matters. First, on the Order Paper at present there are 94 different motions. Some of these are out of date. Others have lost their importance. I believe we have the time — and there would be the will in this House — to group some of these motions together for a debate. Some come under the heading of law and institutional reform. Others have an agricultural theme. Very few of these motions were put down lightly. I would like to see a determined effort to take a number of these in a composite fashion over the coming weeks so that we can at least get through these motions. There are also a number of private Bills. Items Nos. 4 and 6 were originally Fine Gael Bills. I am very keen to see those taken, if possible during the current session, especially when there is such a scarcity of Government work around. I want clarification on Item No. 9 on the Order Paper — the order for local elections. Since the local elections are to be held in June — which is next month — must this order be taken before the date for the local elections? If so, when can we expect it? We will be opposing it strongly and we would like a full debate on the matter.
There is one other matter and that is the question of the proposed visit to this country of Nelson Mandela. It was stated by the Taoiseach in the other House that it is his intention that if Mr. Mandella speaks in the Oireachtas he will speak in the other House only. Why is this House being excluded, as indicated by the Taoiseach? Have any discussions taken place with the Taoiseach and the Leader of the House? Has the case for a joint sitting been made to the Taoiseach? Will it be made and will he report to us on this on an ongoing basis?
At the outset, may I ask your indulgence to extend my congratulations to my colleague, Senator Costello, on his election to the position of President of the Association of Secondary Teachers in Ireland.
If I can take up from where Senator Manning left off I, too, wish to express my alarm at the apparent attitude that we are going to go on the way we were even though the situation seems to have deteriorated quite significantly during the last session. I, too, regret there is no programme of work laid out or that there is no statement to the effect that we are going to set about doing our business in a more ordered and effective way during this coming session. May I ask the Leader of the House if he will use his influence to set about initiating the introduction of more Bills in the Seanad so that they can be debated in a more extensive and comprehensive manner than is sometimes possible in the other House?
May I ask the Leader of the House if he has plans to utilise the undoubted expertise of the membership of the House? There is a great level of expertise there as evidenced in the case of education where we have as Members of the House two leading figures in education, Senator Costello and Senator O'Toole. Are there any plans to utilise the expertise of Members of this House in relation to culture? Some of the foremost figures in the area of culture are sitting on seats behind me and, indeed, beside me. There are others on the other side of the House. There is a very difficult Industrial Relations Bill going through the House. I have beside me an outstanding expert in industrial relations, Senator Harte, not to mention many others.
Will the Leader of the House be prepared to review Standing Orders so that they can be modified and made more appropriate to the needs of a modern Parliament? For example, will a facility be made available so that topical items can be raised in an immediate and prompt manner, rather than have us here in the House debating things when they have long since gone out of date while we are unable to deal with what is topical? May I ask the Leader of the House if it would be feasible to allow for more Adjournment debates? I would have no objection at all to the time which is allowed for Adjournment debates being restricted, nor would I have any objection, broadly speaking, to the time which is being made available to speakers to contribute being limited. I am of the school of thought that if you cannot say something in ten or 15 minutes, then perhaps it is not worth saying at all.
By way of conclusion, may I ask the Leader of the House if it would be possible to reach some sort of agreement or consensus on the introduction and passage of Bills which are effectively non-contentious? There is a series of Bills on the Order Paper. I can see no reason for this. I can see no reason why they would not be let progress rapidly through the House.
On a point of order, there is a process in this House by which the second speaker is traditionally from the largest group. The third largest group is the Independent group. In calling on people to pay tribute to Cardinal Ó Fiaich, I notice the Cathaoirleach went to the Labour Party first and I notice he has done so now again. If that just happened through the course of events, I can live with it, but if it is an indication of the way we mean to continue I intend to object to it. I would like to be clear on it.
It is not an indication, Senator. I looked directly at the Senator a few moments ago in the hope that he would indicate if he wished to speak——
I had indicated.
I would like to ask the Leader of the House the position with regard to motions Nos. 72 and 73 on the list of motions. These items have been on the Order Paper for quite some time and they have now been relegated to being listed with motions. Motion No. 73 is much more important than anything in Private Members' time. People concerned with the entire agricultural business will agree with the sentiments expressed in that motion which calls on the Government and the EC to adopt, immediately, appropriate measures to counteract the serious decline in the income of Irish farmers, particularly those farmers not producing milk for sale.
Apart from the serious position of farmers up to this year, the experts are now projecting a further decline of 5 to 6 per cent in the income of farmers for the current year.
In conjunction with that motion I wish to draw attention to motion No. 72 which calls for massive investment on the part of farmers in the whole area of effluent disposal. I urge the Leader of the House to make arrangements at the earliest possible moment to have these matters debated meaningfully in this House. If time is allowed to slip by, the position of a very large and important segment of our community, namely, the farming community, will have become dire and disastrous. It is already developing in that direction. I am appalled that such little attention has been given to it.
Just to reiterate the opening remarks of Senator Manning, it is crucial that the Leader of the House presents to the House as soon as possible a programme of legislation which will take us through this term. In terms of planning, effectiveness and of the operation of the House, it is essential that we have that programme. I differ from Senator Manning in that the only person I can blame in this matter is the person who presented us with the legislation and that has to be the Leader of the House. I understand there are other pressures on him. Nevertheless, his duty is to the House and the House needs to know the legislation that will come before it. The disgracefully small amount of legislation which has been available to the House makes one wonder what we are at.
In reference to the number of motions at the moment on the Order Paper, we raised the matter early in the last term about extending Private Members' time so that motions on the Order Paper could be cleared. I would again put it to the Leader of the House that Private Members' time might now be increased to three hours a week rather than three hours a fortnight. That would allow for the clearing of many of the motions. I would like a response on that point.
On our last sitting day I raised with the Cathaoirleach the item which is now No. 5 on the Order Paper, that is, an Act to remove the statutory obstacle to free access to secondary education for girls and deleting a discriminatory subsection regarding the education of girls. I asked the Leader about it and he gave me a commitment he would check it out. I intend raising this point on every sitting day. It is disgraceful in these days of equality and progress that such an obscene item should remain in our legislation.
Finally, I would also like to extend my congratulations to my teacher colleague, Senator Joe Costello, on being elected President of the ASTI. I wish him well and I look forward to working with him in that capacity.
I want to begin by joining in the congratulations to Senator Costello, to wish him well in his new post. I have no doubt, given his level of competence in so many areas and his commitment to principled politics, that he will be a great addition to the educational debate over the next number of years.
I share Senator Manning's concern about the lack of coherence in the Government programme for the House. Many people are waiting anxiously for the Seanad to take an initiative in this area but it is not forthcoming. In that regard there must be a coherent programme of work, an in-depth reform of the Seanad and an immediate signal to the people of Ireland that we are serious about our business; otherwise the people will let us know they no longer want us. I am serious about that.
In that regard, the question of farm income would provide an immediate start for us to address an important issue of social and economic concern. As a new Senator, I am disgusted that we do not properly address the socio-economic concerns of our people at a time when milk prices have fallen by 20 per cent.——
Speech.
No, it is a reference to the Order of Business. At a time when sheep and mutton prices have fallen by 30 per cent. and milk and beef prices have fallen, it is a disgrace that we attempt to conduct the business of the House without addressing this question. We must develop a coherent programme of legislation, of discussion of socio-economic issues. We should as a priority have a serious, long debate on the grievous situation of the farming community.
First, I would like to assist the Cathaoirleach in a little bit of clarification about the question of the matter on the Adjournment. Our relations appear unusually accident prone but I would like to support what the Cathaoirleach said. This morning I received a courteous letter from the Cathaoirleach indicating precisely what you said, that the matter I had attempted to raise on the Adjournment was ruled out on the grounds of no ministerial responsibility. I was, therefore, rather surprised to hear you including it but not surprised to hear you correct the statement.
Thank you. We are in perfect agreement.
Absolutely. I would like to raise a number of matters. The first is item No. 4, the Interpretation Bill. I would like to ask the Leader of the House what is the position at the moment. I got an undertaking that this would be advanced. It would increase the prestige of this House if the Government ceased being niggardly and allowed one Bill after 30 years to proceed to fruition and completion from the University benches.
I would like to ask about item No. 7, the Irish Nationality and Citizenship (Amendment) Bill which, again, is a technical Bill, which has been urged upon me during the recess by the constituent who is directly involved. It is now for other reasons also a matter of some urgency that this Bill should be looked at.
I would like to turn to four matters on the Supplement to the Order Paper. First item No. 7 which states:
That Seanad Éireann welcomes the conferring of University status on the University of Limerick and Dublin, City University and calls on the Government to extend Seanad voting rights to the graduates of the new Universities.
In the last session I appended my name to motion and I recall protests from Senator Manning at my impertinence in so doing. I wonder why my name is not on it because it was referred to in the House.
On a point of order the Senator's name is on the motion to which he appended it which is item No. 77.
That is splendid. That is, indeed, good news because I was surprised at the lack of courtesy involved. Most of the university members, if not all, would be glad to join with this and were somewhat surprised that when the question of the constituency which elects us is involved we are not consulted. I understand a great noise is being bruited about a petition organised by a Member of this House who assured me that she had voted for me in this constituency when she is not even on the electoral register. I sincerely hope her information will be better the next time. Perhaps if she consults with me she will have better information for her petition and another name for it.
In regard to item No. 30, I said I would be raising this. I do not wish to be bothersome but the question of the Government's response to the European Court ruling is a continuing matter of scandal. I will be addressing a meeting in Copenhagen of international lawyers on this subject and I have every intention of remarking on this in that forum.
Motion No. 32 deals with the IRA and the rail link between Dublin and Belfast. The reason I raise this matter is because the Leader of the House in the last session gave an undertaking that that motion would be taken and a day was actually mentioned in the House for it. This motion has passed through the Dáil and through a number of councils North and South and is presented at the European Parliament. I would like the Leader of the House to give us a firm date. It is important. That resolution was drafted on the peace train by Members of this House, including myself, and this is an appropriate place for it.
Finally, with regard to the question of Nelson Mandela, I would like heartily to concur with what the leader of Fine Gael, Senator Maurice Manning, said. If the Senator looks at item No. 87, he will find that at the end of the last session I had already put down a motion which I presume should have alerted the Government to the fact that there was concern in the House about this, which says:
That Seanad Éireann calls upon the Government to arrange a joint session of both Houses of the Oireachtas to be addressed by Mr. Nelson Mandela on the occasion of the conferring upon him of the Freedom of the City of Dublin.
As a generous person, I invite Senator Manning and the rest of Fine Gael to put their names to that motion and get a discussion on it. I agree heartily with him that I was concerned at the remarks of Deputy Haughey which appeared to exclude a joint session. I hope this may be agreed.
On the Order of Business, I would like very much, if I may, as a former secretary of one of the University teaching federations to join in congratulations and good wishes to Senator Costello on his elevation to the very important, crucial, post of President of the ASTI and I take the opportunity of also congratulating and sending best wishes to Senator O'Toole on his election to the secretaryship. It is a great tribute to the individuals concerned and I think they will carry out the duties very well. Their many contributions to the debates here have always been interesting and effective. We on this side of the House might not necessarily always agree with them entirely but we would all agree that they have been very impressive and major Members of this House. We are very proud of their further progress.
I would like to join in the congratulations to Senator Joe Costello and to wish him well for the future.
I understand that the First Stage of the Limerick Market Trustees Bill was taken in this House some time ago and has been introduced in Dáil Éireann. I understand the Bill it must be taken between seven and 14 days. I ask the Leader of the House if he intends placing the Bill on the Order Paper for next week and if he would confirm that my information is correct, that it must be taken between seven and 14 days.
I also ask the Leader of the House if, as a matter of urgency, he would allow a two hour debate within the next two weeks on the serious situation that has developed in our custodial service.
I accept and fully support that the law of the land must be upheld in our prisons and that no unjust treatment must take place but I believe at present there is a movement to discredit our prison service.
It is time we asked why people are in prison. I accept that many people are in prison who should not be there. There should be alternatives to prisons and we have motion 79, on the Order Paper to deal with this. I will say that many people are in prison because they have committed murder, because they are rapists or are child molesters or have robbed with violence. There is a movement now to romanticise the situation. We must not allow this. Many of the persons in prison have created a lot of suffering for many people. The whole situation should be put in proper context. Therefore, I ask the Leader of the House to allow a two hour debate on the serious situation that has developed over the past several months, highlighted by the crisis in the past few days.
I want to associate myself with the criticisms that have been made as to the continued unsatisfactory nature of the ordering of business. I support Senator Manning in expressing concern, which indeed is the responsibility of all of us, about the padded-out nature of the Supplement to the Order Paper and the need to streamline that. I support Senator Upton in arguing that there should be some way of bringing before us matters of topicality and urgency other than under the emergency Standing Orders.
Ba mhaith liomsa chomh maith a ghradam nua a threaslú leis an Seanadóir Joe Costello.
Among the items that we could be usefully debating under the heading of urgent topical interest is the question of extradition, on which considerable public and political interest has been focused since we last met and which seems to be the subject of a civilised difference of opinion between the partners in Government, which makes it a very appropriate topic for us to debate here. I might put that to the Leader of the House, that time should be made available to discuss our existing extradition arrangements, whether they are satisfactory or otherwise. After all, there is very little we can do about the unification of Germany. Whether Seanad Éireann agrees or disagrees, Germany is going to be unified but there is a great deal we can do about curing the malaise of extradition. The cure lies in our own hands.
Just for the record of the House because Senator Upton made reference in his address about matters on the Adjournment, on the last day this House sat, Senator Costello was given time by the Cathaoirleach, for a matter on the Adjournment to the Minister for Education on St. Aidan's Christian Brothers' School at Whitehall. When the House adjourned to take the motion on the Adjournment, Senator Costello was missing and we had a Minister here present. Senator Costello, by being missing and the Cathaoirleach or Leas-Chathaoirleach not being in the Seanad, I had the great honour again of taking the Chair for two minutes and it was I who adjourned the House. At least Senator Costello in not turning up gave me the chance of adjourning the House.
Having put on the record the fact that he was missing for his Adjournment motion, I would like to congratulate Senator Costello and Senator O'Toole on their positions in such extraordinarily important bodies.
A Chathaoirligh, during Senator Norris's contribution you said your relations with him were perfect. If your relationship is perfect at the moment or in past weeks, a Chathaoirligh, I would hate to be around when you become enemies.
Senator Honan, you misunderstood the definition I put on "relationship".
While we are on educational matters, I would like to extend to Senator Costello, as a fellow ASTI member, my congratulations on his new position as president of the ASTI. I hope educational matters will come to the fore in the Seanad, which have not been discussed very much since August.
I want to talk about Item No. 77. I am surprised at the little bout of temper displayed here today by Senator David Norris about this petition. The petition from the 50 people who are here behind me with 1,000 signatures shows that the young people of Ireland certainly look towards the Seanad as a House of the Oireachtas in which there can be an input. I see nothing wrong with them bringing 1,000 signatures to Dublin to put pressure on the Government to ensure that the committee I asked for and which has been agreed to would be set up immediately to ensure that the franchise would be extended, not just to the University of Limerick. May I say the initiative came from the University of Limerick who formed an action committee called LUSAG — Limerick University Seanad Action Group. Surely we should be applauding those young people for taking that initiative, for travelling to Dublin, for taking the interest in coming to see the working of the Seanad, to see obviously that there are over 90 motions on the Order Paper that we have not addressed. I do not know what we have been doing here.
I hope that today the Leader of the House will agree to the meeting of the five group leaders to select that committee in order to speed up the process of extending that franchise, not just to Dublin and Limerick but also to other third level appropriate institutions. It should be done in a spirit of support, not of acrimony. I am putting a question mark on whether Senator David Norris is stepping in or stepping out of the motion because his name is in but I had thought I had full all-party support for this and I am hopeful that I have.
You did not ask for it.
I do not think it is a question of asking. It is a question of seeing that representation is totally out of balance when you think in terms of a small Trinity electorate with three representatives——
We cannot debate that now.
And the huge NUI electorate with just three. I hope the Dublin City University and the University of Limerick plus the other third level institutions will be represented——
We are entering into a debate on that now.
——to ensure that we debate issues of education and youth and various other issues in which they would be interested.
Ba mhaith liom a fháil amach an bhfuil aon scéala agat mar gheall ar an gcóras aistríucháin don Seanad. Cheapas féin go riabh geallúint faighte againn go mbeadh sé againn anseo sa Seanad tar éis na Cásca.
I want to ask the Cathaoirleach about the instantaneous translation of the Irish language. I thought it was promised it would be installed after Easter. I am slightly hard of hearing and I did not realise until the other day that we do not have an amplification system here for Senators. I must say on a personal basis I find it very difficult from time to time to hear other Senators. Perhaps that matter could be looked into as well.
I would like, first of all, to support fully what Senator Manning said but perhaps not in quite such a reasonable and moderate fashion.
First, it should be acknowledged by everybody in this House that we stand at a very low point in public esteem due to the catastrophic events towards the end of last term. It would have been helpful if the Leader of the House had come back to us at the beginning of this term and made some effort to present a constructive programme and give a new meaning to the Seanad. I do not think the Leader of the House or whoever he takes his instructions from when he introduces business has put any effort into that so far.
This Order Paper is a collection of the fag end of the business of the last session. There is nothing new on it except Item No. 1 which will take about one minute to go through. There is nothing new on it and there is nothing constructive on it. I made this plea before: if he is serious and if the other side of the House is serious about the Seanad, which I doubt, the first thing I would ask the Leader of the House to do is to accept discussion of Private Members' Bills, from this side of the House. The Government have nothing to fear from discussion of such Bills but apparently they have had to be refused and have been refused up to now. Certainly Senator Murphy and others on the Independent benches would like to introduce amendments to the Extradition Act of 1965 and of 1987.
Because the issue of extradition was first raised in this House in 1982 and continued in this House up until recently when it was introduced in the other House in 1987, it is appropriate that it should be debated, discussed and thrashed out here in the form of a relevant Bill. The truth of the matter is that although the Opposition and the Independents have the time to introduce motions, their effect is meaningless. What we would like to have is the time to introduce Bills which could be discussed and which, if enacted, would come into law and if not enacted would be voted down by the Government for good reasons. If the Leader of the House is serious about this House — and I doubt if anybody on that side of the House is serious about this House any longer — he might give us that particular privilege and we might be able to produce some constructive things.
Withdraw that remark.
I will not withdraw that remark. Certainly not.
On a point of order.
There is no such thing in the circumstances.
I am a former Cathaoirleach. Sorry a Chathaoirligh, there is such a thing. He has made a statement that he is now convinced that nobody in this House, nobody a Chathaoirligh, is serious about Seanad Éireann. That is a very serious statement to make.
It is a political comment and he may believe it to be true.
I should correct Senator Honan and say that I thought nobody on that side of the House was serious about this. I did not apply it to this side of the House.
His comment——
Senator Ross, without interruption.
Finally, I would like to ask the Leader of the House if he could tell us when we are going to get the Companies Bill back which started in this House. Perhaps he could monitor it and tell us at what stage it is in the Dáil? It started in this House in 1987; it is now 1990 and obviously it will come back here. He might use his influence to see that it comes back here quickly, goes through and becomes law as soon as possible.
I want just to make an observation on the Order of Business. I want, in particular, to take up one point made by Senator Murphy, who has now left the Chamber, that was the unsatisfactory nature of the Order of Business. Today we have had something like 13 to 15 speakers on the Order of Business. I recall that on the first day Seanad Éireann sat, there was a desire on all sides of the House that we would steamline the Order of Business and get down to the proper business of this House. I would make the point that in order to improve the situation vis-à-vis the Order of Business the Whips arranged to meet once a week so that business could be ordered. I would suggest to you, a Chathaoirligh, and, indeed, to the Whips on all sides that we have now spoken for an hour on the Order of Business thereby wasting valuable time for discussing a very important Bill. Could I suggest to the Whips that in future when they sit down to order the business members of their respective parties or alliances could convey to them the problems they see forthcoming so that we could cut down the delaying tactics and the utter nonsense that goes on here from time to time in relation to the Order of Business so that individual speakers may get publicity for themselves. If all Senators on both sides of the House are serious they will take up this suggestion. It is not appropriate that people who have Whips operating for them can come in here and act independently even after agreement has been reached on the Order of Business.
First, I would like to congratulate my colleague, Senator Joe Costello, on his appointment as Secretary of ASTI. I wish him well in that post. I have no doubt he will do a very good job.
I find myself in considerable sympathy with the sentiments expressed by Senator O'Keeffe. I had not intended speaking on that specific issue but now that he has spoken I can support him fully. There should be closer liaison between the Whips of the various groups in this House. It is now 3.30 p.m.; business started at 2.30 p.m. and this is one of the Houses of Parliament. It is understandable that for the first few minutes tributes were paid to the memory of the late Cardinal Ó Fiaich.
It is also a fact that if we go back to when this House was elected last year and the days on which it sat an entirely inordinate amount of time has been spent on what is termed the Order of Business. It is a vehicle for speeches and for points of views to be expressed, of antagonism to issues and all kinds of things but it is carried to an unreasonable extent. There is enormous scope for a tightening up of the procedure but that depends on the goodwill of all the Members of this House to recognise that if we are to function coherently and effectively we need less semantics and more business and more getting down to things at an earlier time then we have been doing. I support the Senator's views fully in that regard.
What I had got up to say was something different. I think, a Chathaoirligh, you have got to get to grips with these motions. If you take this Order Paper that is put in front of us, this House is under all kinds of threats at present for all kinds of reasons. If you look at this Order Paper at the present time there are 94 non-Governmental motions and, of these 52 were put down in the year 1989. We are now out in May 1990 and I think, if the House is to have any relevance, you have got to get to grips with these issues, a Chathaoirligh, expedite them, knock heads together if necessary and get a composite motion that could embrace five or six of each of these things and bring that issue up to date. I think there is a credibility problem if we do not as a House do so. It is ludicrous. If you look, for example, at motion No. 45, which refers to the establishment——
Could I ask if the Senator is expediting or delaying the business?
Senator Staunton without interruption.
I do not abuse my function in this House and I wish Seantor Norris would allow me to speak. I speak perhaps 5 per cent as much time as he does in this House during the Order of Business.
In relation to motion No. 45, as an example, a Chathaoirligh, there is a desire to establish a committee of foreign affairs and in that motion it gives notice of a briefing to take place in the Philippines by somebody called de la Toma which was to take place on Tuesday, 28 November 1989. We are now in May 1990 and it is quite irrelevant. I do not think any commercial organisation could function as we are purporting to function in this issue.
May I say, as an aside, the fact that on all of these motions there is such a huge concern about foreign policy issues, relating both to European Community and other issues, again begs the question on this issue of a foreign affairs committee, which, if established, would mean that there would not be a fraction of the necessity for the numbers of motions that are being put down in this specific area.
I would like to thank all the Senators from both sides of the House who offered their congratulations and made complimentary remarks in relation to my appointment as President of the ASTI. I hope during my term of office that I will be able to make some contribution to education and particularly here in the House. I would also like to thank Senator Tras Honan for her congratulations, even though she did condemn me with a certain degree of faint praise by then raising the question of my absence——
I meant the congratulations.
I note the congratulations and I am very thankful for them, Senator Honan. I would like to explain my absence and I apologise for it. I am very sorry I was not here but the reason was that the debate in the House collapsed about four hours in advance of the time appointed.
That is not right.
It continued to 4 p.m. or 4.30 p.m. I was in the House at 1 o'clock. I think it says something about the ordering of business here: if it cannot be seen that a matter is going to take up the full length of time, perhaps we are not organising the business properly. I must say I am very sorry I was not here and I apologise. However, I did think I had a number of hours' space at the time.
On the Order of Business, I want to refer to Items Nos. 41, 48 and 50 the Labour Party have on the Order Paper in relation to prisons, deaths in prisons, prison conditions and so on. I raised this issue on a number of occasions. We have, as I have pointed out, traversed Europe, we have gone from Central Europe to Hong Kong and from the Middle East to South Africa on issues we have debated, but we have not yet debated an issue of local, indeed national importance, and that is our prison system.
We have a tremendous amount of trouble there. It comes up on a regular basis. We move from crisis to crisis. What I would like to do is to request the Leader of the House that either at this time because of the most recent developments which were of an extremely serious nature and because of the possibility of similar developments, certainly the potentiality for similar developments occurring in the prisons, he would allow statements to be made by each of the groups represented in the House; or, alternatively, that he would set a time aside next week for a debate on the issue.
I note the Minister for Justice has stated that both the visiting committee reports and the annual prison report for 1988 is going to be published on Friday, so perhaps it would be a suitable time then for the Leader of the House to make some time available at our sitting next week for a debate on this matter, which is of considerable national importance. I would certainly welcome a statement by Senator Lanigan on that matter.
May I lend my support to items Nos. 7 and 77, which have been raised, particularly by Senators Jackman and Neville, in relation to the extension of the franchise, again in the context of the Seanad elections in regard to the universities and the other third level institutions. I think it is extremely important that we should have as wide a base and as wide a franchise as possible in that area of election. I would welcome an opportunity for that matter to be debated also.
Finally, I would like to mention the question of the ordering of business in the House. I think greater recognition could be given by the Leader of the House to the motions being put down. I stopped putting motions on the Order of Business because the Leader of the House indicated they are not going to be debated. I am at present preparing a Bill on the prisons, which I think is long overdue. If I am going to be told there is no possibility of that Bill being allowed to be debated, again I am wasting my time. I think it is important for the status and the authority of the House that legislation is allowed to be initiated in this House. We have had one Bill in the House in the last term that was initiated through the House but we have not had any Private Members' Bill. I would ask the Leader of the House to consider seriously looking again at the ordering of business in terms of the motions and particularly the legislation that could be introduced here by Private Members because there is a very considerable degree of expertise in the House and it should not be wasted.
For the record, on the last sitting day Senator Costello had a motion on the Adjournment of the House and the House waited for more than 20 minutes for the Senator to turn up. I would have expected the Senator to apologise to the House without any comment because the House waited. It was discourteous of the Senator to keep the House sitting and now he comes in and complains about the procedure in the House. I would have felt that the Senator owed more to the House than to be critical at this point.
May I clarify that? The Order of Business stated that the last item prior to the Adjournment would cease either at 4 o'clock or at 4.30 p.m. That was the Order of Business that was written down and presented to me. What was I to expect except that the Adjournment would take place then? I arrived a 1 o'clock. I was there a good three hours prior to the Adjournment. Therefore, while I apologise for not being there. I think I have a very good reason as well to explain myself.
On the last point, I do not think it is enough just to say that because something is written in the Order of Business and because discussions on a Bill breaks down in the House that that is an excuse for a Senator who has asked to address the House not being present. All Senators are supposed to be in the House at all times or in the vicinity of the House to take any debate.
However, I would like before I get into the specifics of the questions on the Order of Business to deal with a few general points because I think it is necessary that they be dealt with. The opinion seems to be going out from here that there is no business being done in this House and that this House is not being operated in a business-like manner.
Just to put the record straight, I would like to remind the House of the Dáil Bills that have been passed by Seanad Éireann and I will go no further back than November 1989: The Children Bill, 1989; Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Bill, 1988; The Údarás na Gaeltachta (Amendment) Bill, 1989; Trustees Savings Bank Bill, 1989; Video Recordings Bill, 1987; Appropriation Bill, 1989; Bord Glas Bill, 1989; Decimal Currency Bill, 1990; Building Control Bill, 1984, B & I Line Bill, 1990; Derelict Sites Bill, 1989; Social Welfare Bill, 1990, Defence (Amendment) Bill, 1990 and the Dún Laoghaire Harbour Bill, 1989. Seanad Bills passed by Seanad Éireann since November, 1989 were: Criminal Justice (Forensic Evidence) Bill, 1989, Local Government (Provisional Order (Confirmation) Bill, 1989, International Carriage of Goods by Road Bill, 1990, Marine Institute Bill, 1989. Seanad Bills passed by Seanad Éireann in the House: International Carriage of Goods Bill and the Marine Institute Bill.
We have gone through a series of Private Members' motions. It was stated by one of the speakers that we did not deal with anything topical or anything of an Irish nature, that we seem to deal with foreign matters a lot. That is quite true, but we did have debates on Private Members non-party motions on Cambodia, on democracy in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Oireachtas reform, overseas aid, Arigna, tourism, South Africa, overseas development aid, storm and flood damage, amendment of the Constitution and the homeless. There were Government motions passed on bovine diseases levies, the NESC report, Ireland and the European Community, health contribution regulations and the wintertime order.
That would indicate that there has been a lot of work done in this House over the past number of months. Indeed, I would suggest that more Bills have been put through this House, even though we do seem to be in a certain amount of disorder at times. I do not want it to go out from this House day after day that there is no work being done here. It seems to me the media are being manipulated on the Order of Business day after day to ensure that the word gets out that this House is not doing its work. The work is being done in this House on a regular basis.
There have been criticisms of the ordering of business. The ordering of business is the ordering of business for the day in question; it is not a general ordering of business for months in advance. Having said that, the Whips for the first time, on my initiative and with the help of the other leaders, have set up a formal Whips meeting on every Thursday morning. Unfortunately, this meeting has not been attended by one of the groups in the House who have been most vociferous in coming in here and complaining about the Order of Business for the day. The University or Independents group — I am not too sure which they are or whom they represent as a group — do not attend the Whips meetings, so, therefore, it is very difficult for us——
I think it is——
The Leader of the House, without interruption.
I want to put on the record of the House certain things that have never been put on the record before and it is time they were put on the record because——
It is you——
Otherwise, this question will come up day after day and we will have this type of disruption. There is no problem for me in answering questions which are of a specific nature and I will attempt at all times to give as accurate a description of the facts as is possible on the day but when people jump up here on the Order of Business and ask me a question I cannot immediately answer it. I have to get the information and I come back as soon as I can with the information when it is available. Senator Manning started off today on a very positive note when he suggested that the 94 motions on the Supplementary Order Paper are, infact, a nonsense. There should be an amalgamation of a lot of these. If the leaders get together we could do a chopping job on that. The unfortunate part about it is that we could do the chopping job on it and the next week the person who has the motion on the Order Paper could come back and ask that it be replaced on the Order Paper, because it is up to each individual Senator to ask to have a motion on the Order Paper. I do not think we can take these off, but if there was agreement in the House it would address many of the problems. Questions were asked — motion 72 and 73 — by Senator Hourigan on farm incomes and disease eradication —
Sorry, correction.
Effluent, sorry. There was an amalgam of questions — motions 41, 48 and 50 — on prison reform raised by Senator Costello. If these were all put together it would make more sense. Instead of putting down, day after day, individual motions it would be easier for us to deal with these motions more urgently than they have been dealt with up to the present.
On the question of business, we will have business and tomorrow morning the Whip will be able to tell you that among the Bills coming up in the very near future — and when I say "in the very near future" I have no doubt that it will be next week, although we will not be able to take the whole lot of them next week — are the Planning and Development (No. 2) Bill and the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Bill. There is a Turf Development Bill and there are a number of other Bills that are in the pipeline that will be coming up within the next few weeks. However, I am not going to get up here on a daily basis on the Order of Business and give a programme of legislation that I do not know anything about on the day. I can give a general hint as to what is coming up but it is up to the Whips after that to say what the Order of Business will be for the next week.
The question of Private Bills has been raised again and again. I am waiting for confirmation as to the status of these Bills. In one case it is a matter of the Government waiting for the Bills Office to get the actual wording of Senator Norris on the Interpretation Bill. The Criminal Justice (Abolition of Death Penalty) Bill, as everybody knows, will be before both Houses of the Oireachtas very shortly. There is no question or doubt about that.
On the question of a joint sitting, I have no doubt that it is intended that a joint sitting of both Houses will be held but that it will be held in the other House. When I say that I have not read the Taoiseach's statement yet on that matter and I will confirm that for the House tomorrow morning, but I have no doubt that is what is intended.
On topical items to be raised — again that is not a matter for me; it is a matter for another group. We extended the Private Members' time for the Labour group so that they would be able to address themselves on a reasonable basis to matters they wanted to raise. At any stage when there was a request made to me to extend Private Members' time or to have a debate on motions I have always agreed if it were at all possible. We have extended the time beyond the three hour limit in the House in this session. Agreement or consensus on why non-contentious Bills should be debated — I would go along with that but I will talk with the leaders of the groups on that matter. We are talking about a committee system really such as they have in the other House; that a select committee would sit and go through Committee and Report Stages on these Bills. I am not too sure exactly what is intended, but it would seems as if Committee and Report Stages would be taken from the House to a select committee of the House but not in the House.
I am not taking these matters in order; I am taking them in the order in which the papers are coming before me. Senator Ross mentioned his doubts about the commitment of Members of this side of the House to the House. I can guarantee that the vast majority of people in this House as a whole are committed to this House. It was an unfortunate statement by Senator Ross, no doubt looking for a certain amount of publicity which he may indubitably get. I am not too sure whether he will or not. I do not think he was being serious in his comments but it sounded like a good thing to say on the day. That is about as much as I could say about it.
As regards the Companies Act, we have had that Bill for a long long time. It is now in the other House and until it comes out of the other House there is nothing we can do about it.
Senator O'Reilly mentioned farm incomes, lack of support and so forth. That comes into the same area as Senator Hourigan's item. If Senator Hourigan and Senator O'Reilly feel these are the matters of prime urgency for their side they can bring it in as their motion. I think they are the next group to have a Private Members' motion, so if that is the order of priority they want it is in their ball court to take it in that manner.
On the question raised by a number of speakers — Senator Jackman, Senator Manning, Senator Norris, Senator Costello, Senator O'Toole — of the extension of the franchise to Limerick and the University of Dublin, I see no problem in the University——
The City of Dublin University.
The City of Dublin University — I am dyslexic as well as everything else — it was agreed that the leaders would meet and set up a sub-committee to deal with this matter. I think that can be done immediately. However, I would say that cannot do anything but make a recommendation which will be given to the Government because this House cannot legislate for the extension of the franchise. It has to be a matter for both Houses of the Oireachtas but the idea of a committee sitting to look into the implications and the application of the extension of the franchise can be done immediately.
Bhí cheist ag an Seanadóir Fitzgerald mar gheall ar an chóras aistriúcháin. Ní fheadar an bhfuil aon freagra agat, a Chathaoirligh, mar níl aon freagra agam ag an bpointe seo.
Item No. 5 on the Order Paper was raised by Senator O'Toole, the question of discrimination against girls. I will raise that matter with the Minister concerned and report back to him.
On the question asked about the Limerick Markets Bill, that matter has to come before the House within the next 14 days — well, 14 days from the time it went through the Dáil, so it will have to come back in here next week. I think those were the main points.
Item No. 9?
I will report back to the House tomorrow morning on that matter.
Item No. 7?
I mentioned the fact that there were certain Private Members' Bills and that there were difficulties with one, the Interpretation Bill. I will check and see what is the status of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship (Amendment) Bill with the Minister.
In regard to the motion on the supplementary Order Paper concerning the Belfast-Dublin rail link, a date was set and then interrupted by certain events.
We can discuss that again with the Whips tomorrow morning and see when it can get back on the Order Paper.
In regard to having two or three Adjournment matters instead of one as at present, is that agreed?
That is a matter for the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. Is the Order of Business agreed?
Since people have been expressing concern about timing and about times, it is intended that the Horse Breeding Bill, 1985, would proceed no longer than 5.30 p.m. and that item No. 3, the Larceny Bill, would be taken at 5.30 p.m. to conclude at 6.30 p.m.
I would like to ask if a statement would be allowed or whether there would be a debate on the prisons, which was a matter I raised on Item 44.
I will talk to the Senator later about that.
Order of Business agreed to.