The Order of Business for today is item No. 1, Control of Clinical Trials and Drugs Bill, 1990. I have to point out that, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, the debate on all Stages of this Bill will be brought to a conclusion not later than 6 p.m. by the question being put from the Chair. It is then proposed to have a sos from 6 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. and from 6.30 p.m. to 8 p.m. we will take the Progressive Democrats motion on agriculture. That motion will be concluded next week in a debate from 6.30 p.m. to 8 p.m.
Order of Business.
On the Order of Business, I wish to raise two items. First, in view of the statement by the leader of the junior partner in the present Coalition that he would welcome a wide-ranging discussion on aspects of the Constitution, may I ask the Leader of the House if he would agree to make time available over the coming weeks on an ongoing basis for this wide-ranging discussion on the Constitution? I believe it is something which is very appropriate to this House.
Secondly, two weeks ago I asked the Leader of the House if he would be able to report back to us fairly soon on some of the issues arising out of the recent court cases involving this House and I wonder if he would have any information on that today.
I am very glad the matter of the colour of the paper of the Bill was sorted out because anything of an even slightly green tinge can get one into trouble on these benches here where I sit.
I agree with Senator Manning; it would be wonderful to have a debate on constitutional issues because I for one — and, I am sure, Senator Manning will agree with me — would like to figure out how the Progressive Democrats discovered divorce five years after the referendum when they were invisible during it. It would be wonderful to find out——
Senator, we cannot have speeches on any of these matters.
You will agree with me, I am sure, that it would be nice to know how it is they suddenly discovered the issue when there is no possibility of a referendum.
I cannot agree with you and you will have to find another method of finding out.
May I ask the Leader of the House if he would be able to give us some details on the arrangements for the Nelson Mandela visit, if he can update what he had said the last day to us? Secondly, may I ask the Leader of the House if he has made any progress in relation to compositing a serious of motions so that we can have a debate on farm incomes? Thirdly, may I ask the Leader of the House if he will make time available to have a debate on poverty arising from the controversial statements which have been made on this major issue during the past week.
A fortnight ago I asked the Leader of the House if this House would be directly given a first hand information and a report on our six months of the EC Presidency. I now ask the Leader again because, in fairness, I do not think the Members of this House should have to read it in a report of the Dáil. The Taoiseach, or somebody designated in his place, could come to this House and tell us. May I ask the Leader of the House if he has followed that up?
I would like to support Senator Maurice Manning in his request for a debate on the wide-ranging issues of the Constitution in which context perhaps might be placed his subsequent remarks about recent court cases. It appears from this remark that Senator Manning is particularly in need of the education that might ensue from this debate. I understand he is referring to something like the question of separation of powers and I recommend him to read the judgement in that case. If such a debate emerges I will be very happy to take a full part for the first time in those proceedings——
I do not wish to cut across you but there is a procedure here and if Senator Manning had gone on I would have also pointed out to him that he can put down a motion and have it discussed in the usual way.
I understand, but I do feel it is pestilential that we have this continually raised.
On a point of order, if the Senator had been here two weeks ago when I raised the question he would know what I am talking about. On that occasion the Leader of the House undertook to come back to us with a report.
It is not a point of order. I am now calling Senator Joe Costello.
I had not finished, a Chathaoirligh, and I would like to be given——
I presume you must finish if you are not adhering to the rules of the House.
I always adhere to the rules of the House.
Not always.
I would like to continue by asking about item No. 32, the question of the disruption of the Belfast-Dublin rail service. The Leader of the House gave an undertaking that this debate would be taken. It was interrupted by other matters and I simply wish to know when this will be taken and if he could give some information on that. Finally, may I ask the Leader of the House if there will be any response forthcoming from the Government to the recent obnoxious, irresponsible and unhelpful statements of the Mayor of New York, Mr. Dinkins, that an IRA man convicted of murder was merely a soldier who had killed another soldier.
It does not arise.
First, I would like to support my colleague, Senator Upton, in asking the Leader of the House if he would make time available to discuss the implications of the report by the Combat Poverty Agency. It is a matter that concerns a very large proportion of the inhabitants of this country and is one this House should ensure it deals with very quickly.
Secondly, may I ask the Leader of the House if he can give us any information about the progress of the Derelict Sites Bill that has now been before the Dáil for a very considerable time having passed through the Seanad. At the time it was before the Seanad we were talking about very considerable urgency in getting the matter passed into legislation so that it could be implemented, particularly in the context of the large urban areas.
Finally, I wish to raise a matter I have raised again and again, that is that time be made available to debate the situation in Northern Ireland. I am not the only one doing this. This has come from all sides of the Opposition over a long period of months. We have a situation where we have had time to debate matters——
This matter has been raised before by you, Senator, on a number of occasions on your own admission. I am not going to allow you to do it again today. There is a procedure by which you can deal with the matter if you feel strongly about it.
I feel it is such an important matter that the Leader of the House would now turn his attention to making time available for it.
I would like to ask the Leader of the House a couple of very simple questions. Is it intended to take item No. 3 tomorrow, that is, the Criminal Justice (No. 2) Bill, and, if not, when is it intended to take it? It is important to take it before the end of the session, I would have thought. Secondly, perhaps it is through ignorance on my part, but I cannot understand why item No. 1 should be finished at 6 o'clock today. It seems to me slightly dangerous that we should say we are going to have to close it today even if there are more speakers left. We do not seem to be clogged down with business and if the Leader of the House is going to tell us that a Bill should be finished and the question put today he should give us a reason.
I would like to take this opportunity to compliment the delegation to Iran over the weekend. It got very favourable publicity. Any effort made in regard to the release of the hostages in Iran is to be welcomed and it is particularly gratifying in view of the fact that one Member of this House was a prominent member of that delegation. Any steps that are taken which would lead to the eventual release of the hostages is to be welcomed.
I am tempted to respond to the question put by Senator Brendan Ryan about the Progressive Democrats conversion. Perhaps it was when they abolished God in the Constitution that they discovered divorce, but maybe we will discover that during a debate or discussion later on here.
You cannot leave them alone.
I was helping Senator Brendan Ryan.
(Interruptions).
There are a number of ladies on their feet at the moment. I must ask that Senator Doyle be allowed to continue.
This is a matter not of major significance, but it has been puzzling me since I became a Member of this House. Perhaps you could help unravel the puzzle for me. I wonder why the Clerk of the Seanad reads the opening prayer in the Seanad for the Cathaoirleach while in the Dáil the Ceann Comhairle reads the prayer for him or herself. Is there a particular reason for that procedure?
It is in Standing Orders. There is a copy available and it is the tradition as well.
Why the difference?
I cannot give reasons for tradition except that is the tradition.
In the interests of good order during the Order of Business, and with due respect to the House, I did not want to enter into debate with Senator Brendan Ryan but I can assure him that if we have a debate on the Constitution — and I would welcome such a debate — I would have no fears about debating any point we have put forward. Indeed, we have put forward a draft constitution, as he well knows——
We cannot allow debate now.
Points have been raised by a number of Senators. Senator Manning and others spoke about having a debate on the Constitution. I have no intention at this time of having a debate on the Constitution, certainly not during the session, for reasons I will outline. While I have indicated that legislation takes priority, I would remind the House that in the session left to the end of July or maybe August the following Bills will have to be passed. There is a new Bill being published, the Enviornmental Protection Agency Bill. A Fisheries Bill will also be published within the next few days. We then have to take the National Treasury Management Agency Bill, the Insurance Bill, the Broadcasting Bill, the Industrial Credit Bill, the Industrial Relations Bill, Shannon Navigation Bill, we have a Bill for tomorrow, the Criminal Justice Bill, and next week we have the Health (Nursing Homes) Bill. We have a very long programme so it will not be possible to include debates which have been requested by a number of Senators.
The other point raised by Senator Manning was the question of the court decision. I have made inquiries and have received advice, as it were, on that which I will give you. The matter which the Senator raised is a fundamental question as to whether the courts can supervise and adjudicate upon the manner in which the House exercises its constitutional functions in relation to making its own rules, Standing Orders and regulating its procedural affairs. Undoubtedly, there are some decisions of the Seanad which may be reviewed by the courts, the most obvious one of which is legislation that has been passed in conjunction with the Dáil, which may be reviewed on a question of it being repugnant to the Constitution. Procedural matters may be said to fall within a different category. I refer in particular to procedural matters concerning the Seanad as a whole or any of its committees.
Undoubtedly, the Seanad in the conduct and regulation of such affairs should act in conformity with the provisions and the principles of the Constitution, including the principles of constitutional justice. Where an issue arises as to whether the Seanad or any committee has acted in accordance with such provisions or such principles, the real question is whether it is for the Seanad to determine such an issue arising from the internal workings of the House in accordance with article 15, with Senators ultimately answerable to their electors, or whether they are answerable individually or collectively to the courts in relation to this class of matter.
I do not propose to try to provide a definite definitive answer to this fundamental question because to embark on an extensive and wide-ranging analysis of these questions would be an empty exercise. The reason I say this is that the answer involving, as it does, interpretations of the provisions of the Constitution, is a matter of law and ultimately for the courts to determine. Certainly, the Seanad will be entitled to form a view that the courts have no jurisdiction to review these matters.
Senators should note that the courts have taken no binding view on the question which has been raised and certainly did not do so in the recent case which has given rise to this debate. In that case the application for the judicial review was made ex parte, that is, without any view or argument being expressed by any party other than the applicant. All the court did was to give leave or permission to the applicant to apply for a judicial review. It was then open to the House or any named respondent to go into court and seek to have the judicial review proceedings struck out or dismissed on the grounds that the court did not have jurisdiction to review any decision of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, inter alia, on the separation of powers between the judicial and legislative organs of State. This was not done and any subsequent order made by the court was made by consent, without any legal ruling or binding judgment on a question of legal principle. Any procedural changes arising from that case arise because of an agreement reached between the parties and not because of any decision by the courts. As I have already said, the Seanad in the conduct and regulation of its procedures should do so and I do not believe it has ever consciously sought to do otherwise in accordance with the provisions and principles of the Constitution. The House may do so in the belief that it is exclusively a matter for the House, should the House take that view.
If a legal controversy were to arise in the future — and we hope this will not occur — if a Senator were to make a similar application to the courts, it would be open to the Seanad or the respondents in such a case, should they wish to do so, to assert and to defend the Seanad's position on the grounds that the Constitution vests the regulation of procedural matters in the House in the Seanad exclusively and that its decisions in this regard are not reviewable by the courts. In so far as there would then be two opposing views before the courts on this question of law, it would be a matter for the courts to resolve and to decide.
There is little, if anything, to be gained by having a debate on these issues. The House should and must continue to regulate and conduct its affairs according to its own judgment and seek to do so, as it has sought heretofore, in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and principles of constitutional justice. Should an issue of the nature to which I refer come before the courts again, the House will have an opportunity, if it so wishes — and I might point out that it did not take it up on the last occasion — to have advanced on its behalf in the courts the view that such matters are exclusively a matter for the Seanad.
The other point raised by Senator Ryan also referred to the Constitution. I have explained why I do not propose taking the debate on the Constitution.
Senator Upton referred to the Mandela visit. I indicated last week that there will be space provided in the Division Lobbies for Senators; in other words, we cannot sit in the Deputies' seats. The Senator asked for a debate on farm income and also on poverty. I have to say again, for the reasons I have given, that I cannot see ourselves having a debate on those issues in the future.
Senator Honan referred to the EC Presidency and this was raised by a number of speakers on all sides of the House. We are working very constructively towards having that matter resolved. When we have it finalised, hopefully, it will be agreed with the Whips.
Senator Norris referred to three items which were not relevant to the Order of Business. Senator Costello referred to the——
Excuse me, on a point of order, I cannot understand how it is not relevant to the Order of Business when item No. 32——
The Leader of the House says it is not relevant, I have no control over it. The Leader of the House, without interruption.
The Senator referred to the Constitution. He referred to the statements in New York. The other item possibly is relevant, but I have no intention at this point of taking it. My apologies if I misled the Senator there.
Senator Costello and Senator McKenna referred to matters which were not relevant. Senator Doyle's point was not relevant. Senator Keogh's point was not relevant to the Order of Business today; again, it was dealing with the Constitution.
Senator Ross referred to the question of a debate on item No. 3 tomorrow. That will be taken tomorrow morning. He also asked why the Bill before us was finishing at 6 p.m. I would point out that this was agreed by the Whips and I understand the same procedure, a three hour debate, is taking place on this Bill in the other House by agreement. I am quite certain in saying that the reason for this is that the previous piece of legislation, the Control of Clinical Trials Act, 1987, was debated for weeks and weeks in this House, and equally in the other House. I feel that what we have before us here now is simply tidying up or remedying defects that were present in that legislation which, I might point out, were referred to in the debate in this House by many speakers on both sides and now we find that the Act cannot continue without these amendments. It is a short amending piece of legislation. I stress that we had much debate on the main Bill about three years ago and hence the reason for a short debate on this legislation.
Senator Costello referred to the Derelict Sites Bill. My apologies for not referring to it when I spoke earlier. I understand that Bill is being completed this evening in the other House. It is an amendment from this House to the Dáil. They are taking that and it will be passed this evening. He also asked for a debate on Northern Ireland. I have no plans for a debate on Northern Ireland at this time.
On a point of clarification, could the Leader of the House make available to Members of the House copies of the opinion he read to us? Could he also indicate the status and standing of the opinion?
I have departed from the practice here of not allowing anyone to come in after the Leader has replied but because the material being questioned was of such relevance and importance to the House, I allowed a departure from procedural practice.
I regret, unfortunately, Senator Manning, I was speaking from a note for myself and I am not able to give you the details.
What was the status of what you read?
It will be on the record of the House, of course.
It will be on the record of the House.
Order of Business agreed to.