It is proposed to take all Stages of item No. 3, Fóir Teoranta (Dissolution) Bill, 1990 between now and 1 p.m. if that is possible. It is proposed to have a sos from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. and we wish to conclude the debate on Statements regarding European Economic and Monetary Union between 2 p.m. and 4 p.m. I indicated yesterday — and it may yet happen — that we would take what was then motion 80, now motion 79 on today's Order Paper. We may not be able to take it next week, but if we do not we will certainly take it on Tuesday, 18 December. There is a lot of business.
Order of Business.
May I have clarification from the Leader of the House about item No. 3. It will conclude, if possible, today but there is no question of it being guillotined at that time?
No.
I also want to raise a question which I raised yesterday, the matter of the Companies Bill, which I know will be discussed later today by the Whips. I want to draw to the attention of the Leader of the House the rumours which are circulating to the effect that the Minister for Industry and Commerce wants this Bill through as quickly as possible and in a matter of hours — these are the rumours — and that there may be pressure on the Government side to that effect. Will he convey to the Minister, with respect, that this House has not been abolished yet. There are three members of his party here as witnesses to the non-abolition of the House.
This is a Bill which we take extremely seriously. We are prepared to co-operate, we are prepared to sit long hours and we are prepared to sit extra days, but we are not prepared, in any circumstances, to have the Companies Bill, which in effect is a new Bill, rushed through this House, no matter how important the Minister thinks it is. I want to emphasise the seriousness with which my group takes this matter and put it very clearly on the record that there will be no agreement to any curtailment of time or to any attempt to rush this Bill through. I know it is not the wish of the Leader of the House that this should happen, but there are other pressures and I want him to know that he has the backing of the entire House in standing up to any other pressures which may come to have this Bill rushed through.
I want to associate myself with what Senator Manning has said. It would be quite a disgrace. However, I am a little bit more optimistic than Senator Manning. I am quite sure that Fianna Fáil would never give into that sort of pressure from the Progressive Democrats.
I am very concerned that there would be a full debate on the Companies Bill and I am hoping the Leader of the House can reassure us on that matter today. I would also like to ask the Leader what is the proposal in terms of sitting times between now and the Christmas recess? When will that happen and what is proposed for next week? Finally, would it be possible at some stage to have a debate on the fluctuations in the price of fuel and the impact of those fluctuations on the economy at large?
I would like to ask the Leader of the House, in the light of the horrific and, I would consider, absolutely frightening Amnesty International report on on-going abuse of civil liberties and the atrocities in Iran in recent times, if he proposes to use his important office to do something about this in the form of a statement and if he proposes to convey to the Minister for Foreign Affairs the anxiety of this House on this very serious matter. It is a horrific report and worthy of consideration.
I would like to support what Senator Manning and Senator Ryan have said. I think the Leader of the House should remember that the Companies Bill is a Seanad Bill basically; it may be a Dáil Bill now but it was introduced in the Seanad first. It was amended many, many times in this House and, in fact, the bones of the Bill were actually changed in this House. It would be a great pity if the Government were to agree to the measure going through here in a rushed way, in view of the considerable work done on it in this House in the first place.
Secondly, I would like to ask the Leader of the House why he is so reluctant to allow a debate on Northern Ireland. Not least it seems a debate on Northern Ireland would give the Progressive Democrats a chance to explain the fact that they can vote for one thing in this House and then vote against it in the other House. I am talking about Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution. The Progressive Democrats could clarify their position to this House, why they have reversed their position on Articles 2 and 3 and done a U-turn.
We certainly have not and well the Senator knows it.
I would be delighted to give them the opportunity to contradict what I am saying in a full-scale debate, perhaps a day-long debate in this House on Northern Ireland.
Senator, you are being grossly provocative. You must put a question to the Leader of the House.
I am never provocative. I hope the Government as well would be happy to give us a full day to discuss the Brooke talks and their possible breaddown.
One is reluctant to test the Leader's patience following his performance yesterday, but nevertheless I appeal to him to make time available to us to discuss the situation on agriculture for two reasons. One is that the House should be given the opportunity of rejecting the intimidation of the European Community by the United States in the GATT talks and the inference that the Community has not made concessions when, in fact, it has made significant concessions before it ever got to the talks. The second reason I would like to have a debate on agriculture is that last Sunday on the front page of The Sunday Times we had very damaging information about illegal substances being used in beef cattle. We are having another programme on that matter on the BBC tonight and inevitably, there will be very damaging results for the Irish beef industry. The use of these substances is putting those who conduct their business within the law at a competitive disadvantage. It is also funding illegal, subversive organisations in the North and for that reason this House should discuss the matter,
I would like to support the call by Senator Dardis to have a full-scale debate on the issues he points out, particularly with the international blackmailing of the Community in relation to the GATT talks at the moment. What is being demanded would have horrific implications but no outcome or an unsuccessful outcome also has implications that are far from clear to most people. If this House is to mean anything, and if it is to appear relevant to the people at large, we must be able to react quickly to the issues of the day and be able to respond and use it as a forum to discuss, debate and respond to the issues that are affecting our country and our people. The Leader of the House has responded previously to these requests for a response to the issues and to the problems in agriculture, particularly the GATT talks at the moment.
I would like to thank the Leader of the House for agreeing so courteously to the debate on motion 79 and to say that it is quite satisfactory to me if it is taken the week after next. I understand the pressures on Government time and business. It is a controversial, complicated and technical area involving a judgment of the European Court and I would be very happy if any Members of the House would be interested in a briefing, which I could arrange, so that we can have the kind of debate for which I think, this Chamber was designed in which the subject is illuminated rather than clouded by controversy and irrelevancy.
May I ask the Leader of the House if he would allow a debate on the political fund ballot taking place next week by SIPTU? I can understand the interest of all the Members here given that this union is reputed to have 200,000 members which would give an income of roughly £100,000 per week. This debate would establish how SIPTU are going to disburse or apportion this fund to the different political parties and it would also establish——
You are making a speech, Senator.
——if SIPTU would be willing to set up an independent commission to monitor the disbursement of those funds.
I would like to raise on the Order of Business with the Leader of the House what I would hope would be the House's condemnation of the jailing yesterday in Iraq of an Irishman for allegedly trying to escape. I am sure all of us would treat this as one violation of human rights following on others. I ask the Leader to raise the matter with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, with the ambassador and with the EC and the UN. I would also like him to raise the matter regarding the PARC employees. While recent releases are welcome, I do not think any of us should take any kudos in these people being allowed home. Every pressure should be brought to bear on the authorities to ensure that no-one is detained against their will. I spoke to a relative of one of the people who was recently released and their ordeal has had a traumatic effect on them. It is important that the PARC authorities give greater consideration to the human aspect than to the commercial aspect.
Would it be possible for the Leader of the House to convey to the Commissioner for Agriculture, Commissioner MacSharry, our total support for the stance being adopted of not giving one iota further vis-a-vis agricultural cuts? In fact, there were some reservations about the distance we have gone. Would it be possible to convey, firmly and vehemently, our absolute support and approval for the stance he and others are taking, and we hope will continue to take, against dictatorial attitudes of the US, the Cairns Group countries and others about altering the 30 per cent reduction in the agricutlrual area?
I wish to join in the tributes that have been paid to the Clerk of the Seanad, Kieran Coughlan. During the time that I was Leader of the House I always found him to be extremely courteous and, at all times, he attended to the duties of this House with caution, care, diligence and expertise. I know he will do an extremely good job in his promotion and I wish him every success. Whoever takes his place will have an extremely difficult job to fulfil his or her duties in the manner in which Kieran has carried out his work.
I also congratulate the Clerk of the Seanad and thank him for being so helpful to me in my first year as a Senator here. I found him most courteous and helpful and I would like to put that on the record.
A number of the issues raised this morning highlight the question once again of the relevance of the House in dealing with current matters. The GATT talks which are extremely important and pressing deserve a debate. Northern Ireland deserves a debate and we have been looking for one for a long time. So, too, does the issue in relation to the prisons, even the political fund for SIPTU and the question of the source of funds for political parties are subjects that require a good airing in the House. We should have an opportunity to put relevant issues on the agenda. I know the Leader of the House will say to me, as he has said before, "you can put down the item in Private Members' time". We should have a more structured formula in the agenda of the House where we could discuss very pressing and relevant issues as they arise.
Senator Manning referred to item No. 3. I said that, if possible, we will take all Stages but if that is not feasible, we will not rush it. He referred to the Companies Bill, as did other Senators. That matter will be discussed by the Whips when the Order of Business has concluded. I am not under pressure from the Minister for Industry and Commerce in regard to the question of time for the Companies Bill. Senator Manning said that the Minister wanted it within "a matter of hours". As the Senator knows, this House is notorious for rumours and I suggest that is a rumour, and a false one.
I am very reassured.
Senator Ryan also commented and raised a query on it. Senator Upton spoke of a full debate on the Companies Bill and he asked what was the approximate plan of programme for next week and the week after. We have a lot of business and next week we will have the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Bill and the Companies Bill. We will have the Independent Group's motion in Private Members' time. The following week we will have other legislation and the Companies Bill. We hope to have a debate on motion 79 on the Order Paper on that Tuesday and we hope to make a start on the Appropriation Bill which must be passed before the end of December. Senator Upton asked for a debate on fuel prices. I can say for certain that we will not have a debate on it before Christmas. It is something for the future.
Senator O'Reilly asked about the Amnesty International report. It is something I have noted. Senator Ross referred to the Companies Bill and he asked questions about Northern Ireland. I assure Senator Ross of two things: we will not have a debate before Christmas on Northern Ireland but it is something on which I will endeavour to facilitate him in the New Year if at all possible.
Senator Dardis asked about agriculture and the GATT talks. We had a fairly long discussion on agriculture recently and we will not have a debate on it before Christmas but I appreciate the concern of many Senators in regard to the whole area of agriculture, the GATT talks and so on. Senator Doyle also referred to agriculture.
Senator Norris briefly referred to motion 79 and noted what I said. Senator O'Keeffe referred to the activities of SIPTU. I have no proposals to investigate that matter at this time. Senator Cosgrave referred to the person who was jailed in Iraq and he also asked about the PARC employees. I have no plans for a debate on that before Christmas. I also noted that Senator Cosgrave spoke on the two items.
Senator Hourigan referred to agricultural matters. I have given my reply to him on those. Senator Lanigan paid tribute, and rightly so, to Kieran Coughlan. Senator Costello referred to debates on a whole series of matters — Northern Ireland, the prison service and so on. With regard to the role of the Seanad and whether it should be open to debates on whatever is the order of the day or the flavour of the month, I am not certain that should be the way forward but it is something for the future. I noted what Senator Costello said.
Order of Business agreed to.