It is proposed to take items Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. The Altamont (Amendment of Deed of Trust) Bill, 1990 will obviously be the first item because it is Private Business. It will be taken from 10.30 a.m. to 11.15 a.m., followed by all Stages of the Competition Bill, 1991 from 11.15 a.m. to 2 p.m. There will be a sos from 2 p.m. to 3 p.m. We will resume at 3 p.m. with Report Stage of the Payment of Wages Bill, 1991 until 4 p.m. That will be followed from 4 p.m. to 5 p.m. by item No. 4 the draft Order applying Part II of the Extradition Act, 1965. From 5 p.m. until 9 p.m. we will take Statements on Agriculture. In that connection it is proposed that each spokesperson will have no more than 20 minutes and each other Senator 15 minutes.
Order of Business.
Will the Leader of the House indicate when the House will meet again after the recess? Secondly, last week the question of Northern Ireland was raised and the collapse of the talks. We mentioned the opinion poll, published since then, which showed the enormous volume of public support for the resumption of talks and the fact that the public seem to be ahead of the politicians in this whole question. The word should go out from here today that all parties in this House want the talks to resume at the appropriate time but with a sense of urgency. A certain amount has been achieved and it would be a great shame if the progress made were not to be followed up. In that context I think all of us here would like to pay tribute to the Secretary of State for the North, Mr. Brooke, for the sense of commitment he has shown and on the progress made up to now, which we hope will not be let go.
I would like to raise a matter which has been raised on virtually every Order of Business since the beginning of this session, namely the absence of a foreign affairs committee. It was my impression, and that of most Members of the House, that this principle had been conceded quite some time ago. Then the committee was taken back, as it were, from the Oireachtas, almost as if we were children who had behaved in some untoward way. Since this Seanad came into existence there have been the events in Eastern Europe, the changes in South Africa, the Gulf War, the problems in Tibet and Malaysia, the GATT talks and G7, all of them of world shattering consequences. We remain the only Parliament in the western world which does not have a foreign affairs committee. All of us in this House on all sides see that as a scandal. I want to make a proposal to the Leader of the House. We are a sovereign parliament; we do not not have to ask Government or depend on Government to establish our own procedures. I am proposing on an all-party basis that during the recess the heads of the various groups in this House get together to put forward a proposal for a foreign affairs committee for this House. There is nothing to stop us doing it and it would be an assertion by the Members of this House of the important role we see for the Seanad in this whole area. I am making that as serious proposal. I am certain I would have the support of all Opposition groups but I also know that there are many Members on the Government side who would agree with such a proposal, would see it as positive and as one way in which this House could indicate that we are serious about doing the business for which we are elected.
On today's business, the way in which the Competition Bill is going through both Houses is disgraceful. This is major Government legislation which has far-reaching and long-lasting consequences. It was guillotined through the Dáil where a significant number of amendments were not even discussed. The same thing is happening here. The whole operation is pointless. The Minister wants the Bill on the Statute Book before the summer recess. No matter what amendments we put forward, they will not be accepted. The Bill is required by the Minister and he is not consulting this House. He does not give a damn what we say here today. We are going through a pointless charade. This is typical of the way in which this Minister has treated the Seanad in the past. If the Bill is held up this House is blamed, as we were blamed on the Companies Bill. When this House does an enormous amount of detailed work, as on the Environmental Protection Agency Bill, that is very easily forgotten. On that Bill we showed a great example and did a great deal of work. We are not being given the opportunity today to do that. This Bill is being rushed through by a Minister who promised as a major part of the Programme for Government that there would be major proposals by the end of 1989 for the reform of the Oireachtas. We have not seen sight of those proposals since then. What we are seeing is this House being steamrolled by the same Minister. If we judge by the record, the Progressive Democrats have given a new meaning to the word Parliamentary reform. What it means is a job for every one of them and to hell with the rest of the House.
I fully support Senator Manning on two points, on the Northern situation and on the call for the establishment of a joint committee. To be realistic, setting up a voluntary joint committee without Government approval will not get us very far. In fact we did have such a committee and my recollection is that it collapsed very quickly.
I would like to put to the Leader of the House that there is much more public indignation perhaps than he realises about the failure to set up this committee. I know people have other things to worry about, but I was surprised at the amount of reaction I got at what appears to people to be a cynical volte face on the part of the Taoiseach who, it appears, decided not to go ahead with this for purely personal reasons.
On the Northern question, again I support Senator Manning. These polls were a revelation and the Leader might take particular note of the fact that North and South there was an overwhelming demand for a revision of Articles 2 and 3. That supports my earlier suggestion in this House that the Government would do well now to consider a constitutional initiative in the forthcoming months.
I have no quarrel with the Order of Business. Of course, it is perfectly appropriate that there should be a debate on agriculture as is proposed under item No. 5, but I am curious to know how this can be squared with Standing Order 42 on which the Chair and I had a certain difference of opinion some months ago. Standing Order 42, I would remind the House, in effect prohibits discussion of the same topic within a six month period, and there was a debate on agriculture on 28 February. I took the trouble to look at the content of the speeches and I predict that the material will be absolutely duplicated intoday's debate.
The Senator is wrong.
It is a clear case, it seems to me, of Standing Order 42 being violated and an inconsistency on the part of the Chair.
I must point out Senator that, because of the pressures of business upon you every day of your life, you have failed to acknowledge, or realise, that it is statements this House will be dealing with today, not a motion. It is in the context of a motion that the Standing Order in question refers. If there is repetition in the context of the statements today, that is a matter for the individuals concerned. We are talking about two different things. The ruling previously by me stands, is in order and is in accordance with Standing Order 42. The statements are not duplicated and there is no inconsistency.
It does not convince me, I must say.
Let me express my concern that the legal system now seems to be breaking down in terms of its capacity to cope with young offenders. The events in the courts yesterday are very alarming. They are giving a clear signal to young offenders that they are now untouchable. I wish to express my concern about that and to say that the public are utterly frustrated with what is happening.
I should like to ask the Leader of the House when it will be possible to take item No. 49 which deals with the famine in Africa. Four hours have been allocated for statements and a debate on agriculture this evening. The problem with the Common Agricultural Policy is that it has produced a surplus while millions of people across several regions of the world are dying of starvation. It is a travesty that we have not had an opportunity of devoting some attention to the problems of distribution. I support our Leader in the Seanad, Senator Manning, in his renewed call for the establishment of a foreign affairs committee. I had the honour of presiding over such an ad hoc committee in 1981-82. That committee came together as a means of self education. We met many of the VIPs who visited the capital and many ambassadors. It was a very important forum then. In recent years international events, even in Eastern Europe, have affected the economy and the lives of the people here and in that regard it is more urgent than ever that we have an input into the policies of the Government. There is little point in being in an assembly such as this unless we have an opportunity of influencing some of the policies we have to live under. I should like to ask the Leader of the House to consider meeting, perhaps tomorrow, to take a motion on famine across the world, I should like also to join with Senator Upton in calling for an early solution to the problem of young offenders.
I welcome the debate on agriculture and I am sure it is because of an appeal by all Members of the House that this debate is taking place today. From previous experience I am concerned that some Senators might not get an opportunity to speak in this debate. Usually all Senators wish to contribute on such occasions but as 15 minutes is allowed per Senator I can see only about 12 or 13 Senators contributing if they speak for the allotted time. I wonder if the Leader of the House would consider restricting the contributions to ten minutes.
Ba mhaith liom ar dtús a iarraidh ar Cheannaire an Tí pé rud gur féidir leis a dhéanamh ar son fear as Conamara atá curtha i bpríosún ag an Stát seo toisc gur sheas sé suas ar son pobal Chonamara, mar go raibh caighdeán na mbóithre chomh uafásach sa Ghaeltacht is mó sa tír gurbh éigean dó diúltú an cháin chairr a íoc. Os rud é go bhfuil an oiread sin cainte ag Fianna Fáil faoin Ghaeilge——
That matter is irrelevant and I will have to rule you out of order on it. It is a private, personal matter that you are raising here and it is not business of the House.
Caithfidh mé a rá go bhfuilimid tar éis ceisteanna a phlé ar an athló faoi dhaoine faoi leith i bpríosún. The case of an individual person in prison was raised in this House on the Adjournment by my colleague Senator Norris.
The Adjournment is the appropriate time to deal with it.
Nílim ag argóint leat faoi sin, a Chathaoirligh, ach amhain a rá gur luadh ceisteanna mar sin riamh sa Teach seo.
On the matter raised by Senator Upton we had a discussion not long ago on the prison system. Would the Leader say why the State refuse the offer of a premises — Irwin House, outside Stradbally, County Waterford — provided by the Sisters of Mercy and run by one of the most competent individuals, the Sisters having offered up to £100,000 a year for two years to run a detention centre for disturbed adolescents? Why was that offer refused? The project collapsed because the State would not help it in spite of the extraordinary generosity of the Sisters of Mercy.
I would like to reiterate what my colleague Senator Murphy said and ask the Leader of the House, if the Taoiseach will not agree to a joint committee of both Houses of the Oireachtas on foreign policy, could we not just once in this House do something on our own and set up a committee of Seanad Éireann on foreign policy. As Senator Murphy has said, there are large numbers of people in this country to whom it is gratuitously offensive that the Oireachtas apparently can never be trusted to discuss anything significant and that the most appropriate response to a difficult situation is to say always that it would not be appropriate to discuss it. It is the most extraordinarily one-legged democracy I have ever seen. The fact that neither of the Houses of the Oireachtas will meet for perhaps three months confirms the view that it is a somewhat parlous democracy. Will the Leader agree to us setting up a committee on foreign affairs in this House alone if the other House cannot get around to agreeing to a joint committee? Let me agree with my colleague in repeating my suggestion, even at this late stage, that we discuss the dreadful state of famine in Africa even if it means meeting again this week. There is something particularly offensive to ordinary people in the spectacle of Europe being involved in a huge budgetary crisis because it produces too much food for its own consumption while, at the same time, Africa is in an even worse crisis because it cannot feed itself.
A question, please.
I would like to ask the Leader if we can at some stage discuss that most frightful of all crisis; the possible starvation to death of millions of people. May I reiterate that there is something particularly appalling about the fact that the most apparently insoluble problem on our own doorstep, the problem of Northern Ireland, is a classic example of the philosophy that if it is difficult, do not let Parliament talk about it. Can we have a debate on Northern Ireland which would allow time for all of us, with our differing views, to state our positions. There are a variety of positions on Northern Ireland and perhaps one slightly simplistic view of the revisionist mentality has taken over far too strongly and it is time some of the other perspectives were put on the record. I would like a debate to do that.
I raised the issue of bank charges previously and I was unable to get an opportunity to have the matter debated in this House. I would like to raise it again this morning given the fact that I noticed a recent AGM of one of the banks the shareholders raised the issue of charges indicating that they thought they were extremely severe. I would like also to say to the Leader of the House that I do not agree with the reply given by the management of the bank on that occasion that charges are being levied only on those who have overdraft facilities. This, in effect, means that there is double taxation on people who have overdraft facilities. I failed to get this matter debated in the House and I failed in my request to raise it on the Adjournment because of lack of ministerial responsibility. It seems rather strange that in respect of charges which can increase by 70 per cent in certain sectors, that will bring in, by way of interview, something like £200,000 to the coffers of the various banks through the managers, we cannot and have not an opportunity to debate this issue in this House. This is a very serious matter and I am disappointed with the levity with which it is being taken on the far side of the House. May I ask the Leader of the House if in the intervening period he will take up this anomaly with the Minister for Finance and afford the House an opportunity when it resumes for a full debate on the operation of banks, but charges and the role of the Central Bank in controlling charges.
I agree wholeheartedly with the remarks made by Senator O'Keeffe on this occasion. I also urge the Leader of the House to enable us to have a full debate on the role of the banks, how they operate, how they decide on charges and how you can have this situation when you have incredibly low inflation rates while bank interest rates remain at an incredibly high rate. Can the Leader of the House indicate to us when the House will resume in the autumn? It will be so far away no doubt that we will have forgotten it all.
I had hoped that some of the questions put this morning would be left until we resumed because they will be forgotten.
With your indulgence, a Chathaoirligh, as this will be the last opportunity to raise the matter I would not like to forego it. Perhaps the Leader would have a look at some of the suggestions that were made, so that even in the short term greater degree of flexibility is introduced to, permit members to raise matters of topical interest or relevance, which we do not have an opportunity of discussing at short notice, or to permit us to raise a number of items on rather than a single item. Even those developments would improve the operation of the House and give us a greater say.
This brings me to a point raised by other Senators concerning the 15-year old boy for whom there was no place in a detention centre yesterday. The whole question of the lack of facilities for the detention of youngsters who are in need of secure detention has been raised in the House again and again over the past two years. We have expressed clearly our wishes in this House — they have been expressed in the other House — in relation to these matters and it is a scandal that time after time we are told the matter is in train. We were promised that action would be taken and facilities provided but nothing has been done. Once again we have been given a promise. I ask the Leader of the House to convey to the Minister for Justice our concern that no facilities exist. Where detention facilities exist treatment facilities are not available for the people in question.
I should like to add my voice to the request for a foreign affairs committee. It is a scandal that we have no input in relation to foreign policy. The Taoiseach indicated, almost by a sleight-of-hand, that he was at last going to establish an Oireachtas joint committee on foreign affairs. It was a question of now you see it, now you do not; it has gone. I ask the Leader of the House to stress the absolute necessity of having such a committee established or can we have an explanation as to why it has not been set up. We have raised the issue frequently in this House over the past two years and we were given to understand it would be set up but now it seems that will not happen.
Finally, I should like to ask the Leader of the House to give us an opportunity to debate the new charter for Dublin City Council. The charter contains many positive proposals for good Government in Dublin which could be a blueprint for other cities. Will the Leader of the House put the matter on the Order Paper for debate as early as possible when we resume in the autumn?
I would like to raise what I consider to be a very important matter and ask the Leader of the House a question about it. I notice that the Synod of the Church of England called for a boycott of Nestle products. This multinational company are marketing aggressively in Third World countries and encouraging mothers to use milk products and milk substitutes rather than to breast feed. Everybody knows that breast is best. This is one example of large multinationals selling aggressively, and often enormously, to Third World countries. Such products as nicotine, mercury soap and so on are sold and this should not be allowed. I should like to ask the Leader of the House to, on our return from the recess, consider having a debate on the role of multinationals in Third World economies.
I should like to point out that if the Order of Business is agreed the time constraint put on The Altamont (Amendment of Deed of Trust) Bill is 11.15. Members should bear this in mind.
The Chair took the words out of my mouth in relation to that issue. The Leader of the House ordered that the Altamont Bill which we were to deal with since last Christmas will be taken between 10.30 a.m. and 11.15 a.m. It is now 11 o'clock and we do not know how long more the Order of Business will take. It is grossly unfair to the Bill, and the parties involved, if it is to be talked out because of the length of time the Order of Business is taking. I am not complaining about my colleagues speaking on the Order of Business as it is, after all, the last day of this parliamentary session.
I appeal to the Leader of the House to reorder the business so that there is adequate time to discuss the Bill. I hope that the Altamont Bill will be a formality, if so we may not need more time. It would be reasonable and appropriate to allow for extra time in case it is needed.
The second question I want to put to the Leader of the House is in relation to statements on agriculture. I am completely dissatisfied at the ordering of business because a hurricane is brewing at present in the agricultural community in relation to proposals. We made repeated requests in this House last week for a major debate on this issue. We are faced with a type of ritualistic offering here because, politically, the Seanad cannot go into recess without discussing this issue. If each Member of the Seanad chose to speak on that issue this afternoon the time allocated would be four minutes each, it should be much more open-ended. There should be much more scope for debate and if we need to sit tomorrow as well as today, so be it. If we wanted to broaden the scope of that debate to take in the issue of unemployment, which we also wanted to talk about, certainly we should have at least a full day's debate.
Does the Minister propose to come into the House to speak on this specific debate? If so, how will that further shorten time? It is a disservice to this House — that is not a personal remark as far as the Leader of the House is concerned, I find him very competent, pleasant and conciliatory — and we are bringing this House into disrepute if we guillotine hugely important Bills such as the Competition Bill. We hear much criticism of the Seanad but Senators are liable to criticism if they order business in such a fashion that they make a mockery of what we are doing here.
Finally, I was one of the first to persistently raise the question, on the Order of Business in this House, of the foreign affairs committee. I was also the first person in the Seanad to sound the alarm bells two or three months ago when I read a fairly perceptive article in one of the national papers which suggested that the Taoiseach was not going ahead with this because of personal issues concerning an individual in his party, which is no concern of mine. At the time I was told we should not pay attention to the newspapers. I merely sought information from the Leader of the House because we had been told, as the record of the House will show, that that committee was to be established. Will the Leader of the House state whether it is the intention of the Government to establish this committee? If so, when? I agree totally with Senator Manning — a parliament is a master of its own destiny to a certain extent and is independent of an Executive. We do not exert this authority as much as we should. I hope that the Government will indicate their intention of establishing a foreign affairs committee. There will be a consensus here if they decide to do so but if they do not I ask the Leader of the House to get together with his colleague — the Leader in the Dáil — to establish a joint committee of the Oireachtas independent of the Executive. If the Dáil do not agree, the Seanad — as Senator Ryan suggested — should unilaterally establish a Seanad foreign affairs committee, a step which we have authority to take. Thank you, a Chathaoirligh, for your indulgence.
I reiterate the sentiments of the other Senators in expressing the sincere hope that the very important talks relating to Northern Ireland will recommence at the earliest possible opportunity. As it is the last day of the session, and notwithstanding what other people have said, I take the opportunity to compliment and congratulate the Leader of the House and the Government Whip on the excellent manner in which they have carried out business during this session.
I will not delay too long, I will try to facilitate the Seanad and will not raise all the items I wanted to raise.
I wish to thank the Leader of the House for allowing this debate on agriculture which is very important indeed. We welcome that and thank him for the time given. We have been looking for a debate on job creation, not on unemployment. It should be noted that more people are unemployed than are engaged in full-time farming so it is an equally drastic situation. I urge that that debate take place as soon as we resume.
On the question of the foreign affairs committee, many matters which Senator Lydon raised today and in the past, could be very usefully employed in a foreign affairs committee. Would it be feasible or practical to extend the remit of the Joint Committee on Secondary Legislation of the European Communities to cover foreign affairs? Would it do the job? It is another option we should consider if the other committee are not set up.
I should like to welcome a distinguished group of young students from Chernobyl in the Soviet Union visiting Ireland who have been brought to the House by Deputy Nora Owen. I am sure the House would like to give them a specially warm welcome.
I join Senator Manning in applauding Mr. Brooke for his initiative but we should not forget that the Irish Government played a major part in that initiative; we should not forget the role which the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs have tried to play in bringing forward the peaceful resolution of the problems in this island. It is easy to talk about Mr. Brooke but the Irish Government and the Irish Foreign Minister also have a major part to play in that particular initiative.
I have a certain sympathy with those who are calling for a committee on foreign affairs, it is something that we should ask the Leader to look at. When the Dáil committee on foreign affairs is being set up we should ask the Leader to do his best to ensure that it is a joint committee on foreign affairs.
Senator Ryan in his interruption this morning——
Interruption?
——broadened the debate further because he did not look for a committee on foreign affairs, he looked for a foreign policy committee. He knows that if a foreign policy committee are set up it will kill the initiative in regard to setting up a foreign affairs committee. I cannot see any Government or any Minister for Foreign Affairs allowing a foreign policy committee to be set up in this or the other House. I hope it does not happen.
I join Senator O'Keeffe in asking that the affairs of the Central Bank be investigated in this House. There is absolutely no doubt that the conservative attitude of the Central Bank is having devastating effects on Irish business. I ask the Leader of the House to have a debate as soon as possible on the affairs of the Central Bank because they are the major inhibiting factor in the running down of the Irish economy at present.
I support the call by Senator Staunton that we should rejig the time allowed today — even if it means reducing the length of the sos — to allow sufficient time to debate the Altamont Bill and the other matters which have to be dealt with.
Some weeks ago I raised the matter of temporary emergency accommodation for juvenile offenders. On that occasion the Minister for Education came in and delivered a tirade of abuse to Members and staff in relation to the lack of notice which, apparently, emanated in her Department. I wish the Minister had, on that occasion and since, displayed the same amount of energy when dealing with the question in relation to the provision of temporary accommodation, which came to light yet again yesterday. How must the victim of the attack and the gardaí who detected and investigated the crime feel? I ask the Leader of the House to indicate to his constituency colleague, in his own skilful style, the concern of Members of this House about this ongoing problem, which has not been addressed. It is probable that during the summer we will read of further such attacks.
Finally, would the Leader of the House promote to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges the consideration of a limited Question Time for Members of this House for the autumn session. That matter should be investigated fully.
The Order of Business would not be so lengthy if the Government had taken action in crisis areas. I join other Senators in comments they have made about the provision of the detention centre. The remark made by the official of the Department of Education that the circumstances were "unfortunate" is extremely leamh. I ask that the House monitor progress made in relation to the provision of that detention centre in September. Then, perhaps, the matter will not need to be raised continually after September. The release of the 15 year old rapist is a matter of great concern to people and particularly to rape crisis centres. The matter has to be referred to by the House, it is very serious and it cannot be dismissed just because there is insufficient time within the Order of Business.
A Chathaoirligh, while we may be on different sides next Sunday in Thurles, I must once again support Senator Batt O'Keeffe in speaking about the banking system, the role of the Central Bank in banking strategy, the attitude of the banks towards the economic crisis and the need for the Government to take a firmer hand in trying to make the banks realise that there is a crisis in industry and agriculture. The banks go on in their own merry way; they may take action later on and they may not. That attitude is not good enough. It is not good enough for the Central Bank to sit back and take a laissez-faire attitude. Let us be more belligerent and take on the banks and lending institutions. In my understanding, in every recession the banks make the biggest profits, and they have done very well. It is time for us to take them on.
Tá mé fágtha ag deireadh ar fad. Cé gur tháinig an Seanadóir Ryan isteach an-deireanach fuair sé an t-urlár romham. Ní dóigh liom go bhfuil sé sin féaráilte. É sin ráite——
(Cur isteach.)
I do not believe Senator Ó Foighil really meant that.
——a Chathaoirligh, iarraim ar an Ceannaire díospóireacht a chur ar siúl faoin Civil Liability Act, 1961, Acht an-tábhachtach a cuireadh tríd an Oireachtas sa bhliain sin. Tá sé ann le 30 bliain agus níor chuir Rialtas Fhianna Fáil i ngníomh é. Dá ndéanfaí é sin ní bheadh an fear óg as Rosmuc i bpriosún inniu, mar bheadh freagarthacht ar an chomhairle contae go mbeadh na bóithre deisithe i gceart; ní bheadh aon timpistí bóthair ann agus mar sin bheadh sé toilteanach an cháin a íoc. An dtabharfadh an Ceannaire cead dúinn tar éis an tseisiúin seo díospóireacht a bheith againn ar an Civil Liability Act, 1961, agus feicfimid ansin cad iad na deacrachtaí móra atá ann i dtaobh deisiú bóithre?
Ó thosnaíomar anseo le dhá bhliain, tá mé ag ceapadh go raibh chuile Aire i láthair anseo nuair a bhí ábhair á bplé a bhain len a Roinn. Ach tá eisceacht mhór amháin faoi seo, is é sin Aire na Gaeltachta. Dúirt mé sa Seanad cúpla mí ó shin gur gheall le taibhse é.
Tá tú as ordú, a Sheanadóir.
Tá mé ag iarraidh ort anois——
An bhfuil ceist agatsa?
Tá ceist agam: an gcuirfidh an Ceannaire ceist ar Aire na Gaeltachta, An Teachta Cathal Ó hEochaidh, de réir mar a thuigim, an dtiocfadh sé isteach sa Seanad chun a mhíniú dúinn cén fáth nach bhfuil sé ag ceapadh Bord Údarás na Gaeltachta. Bhí sé ar an bpáipéar cúpla lá ó shin gur thug sé cuairt ar Newgrange, and he had inner feelings and inner thoughts le daoine ón taobh amuigh. Is cosúil go bhfuil sé fós ag plé leis sin agus nach bhfuil a fhios aige go bhfuil Gaeltacht ann. Dá bhrí sin ba mhaith liom é a fheiceáil "in the flesh" go bhfeicfí an bhfuil sé ann, beo nó marbh.
I support other Members in their comments in relation to the creation of a foreign affairs committee. For two years Senators have been begging that such a committee be established. I should like to put on record my complete dissatisfaction with the Government and with the attitude taken by both political parties on that matter. The most momentous foreign affairs events have been witnessed in almost every Continent in the past three years and Senators have been explicitly excluded from any discussion of those matters. We are sick and tired of talking about devolved Government, the rights of democracy and giving people a say; we cannot even practice what we preach. The continual promise of such a committee is not satisfactory. Personally, I am sick and tired of that and I am insulted by the way we have been treated. I ask the Leader of the House to come back to the Seanad with an answer on that committee, otherwise Senators are only wasting time and trying to pretend we have an input into crucial matters.
Order, please.
Senators have made no input, we have been excluded and I am fed up playing that game.
I wish to ask the Leader of the House what work the Seanad is required to do today. Not only has the timetable for The Altamont (Amendment of Deed of Trust) Bill gone out the window, the time allocated for the Competition Bill has now also been invaded. I wish to question the way the Competition Bill will be dealt with. That debate was to run from 11.15 a.m. to 2 p.m. and I should like to know if irrespective of the time that the discussion on the Order of Business concludes, the Seanad will have two and three quarter hours to debate Committee Stage of that Bill? The time allocation for the debate of Committee Stage is completely inadequate. I wish to point out to the Leader that the Bill will affect the lives of many people, traders, companies and industries throughout the country. It attracted more than 100 amendments in the Dáil on Committee Stage, quite a number of them moved by the Minister and for Committee Stage today I have tabled eight amendments.
Will it be possible to arrange the timetable so as to ensure that all Parts and the Schedule receive some attention? I suggest that perhaps discussion on the first three Parts should conclude at the half-way stage of the time allocated and that the remaining two Parts and the Schedule be concluded in the remainder of the time available. I should like to ask the Leader if it is proposed to take the remaining Stages today. The Seanad should make some attempt to do justice to this very intricate legislation.
A number of Senators, including Senators Manning and Costello asked when we would meet again. My reply is that we will adjourn this evening sine die. I am not suggesting for a moment that either Senators were suggesting that we were not effectively working and spending much time in the House but I would have to say to the House that to date we have sat 48 days this year, a little over half of the year. In 1974 we sat on 38 days for the full year; in 1976, 39 days for the full year; in 1978, 36 days for the full year; in 1979, 36 days for the full year, and in 1980, 28 days for the full year. These were not election years because if you go back to an election year you will find that we sat 22 days, 28 days and so on. In 1983 we sat 34 days. The average annual number for 1965 to 1971 was 33 days; for 1972 to 1978 it was 37 days and for 1979 to 1986 it was 42.3 days. I give that information to contrast with the current year where we have to date sat on 48 days and I expect we will have had another 18, 19 or 20 sitting days by the Christmas recess. We are working quite hard indeed and doing our job well. The reply I will give is that we will adjourn this evening sine die.
Senator Manning and others referred to the foreign affairs committee and the Senator suggested our own Seanad foreign affairs committee. I have to say I am not enthusiastic about this idea but obviously it is a matter for consideration. I can only repeat what I said. My information is that the foreign affairs committee will be set up.
Senator Murphy and others referred to the problems in Northern Ireland. I certainly would have to agree that the events of the past week were quite extraordinary with the spectacle of the religious and the political leaders in the North more worried about who should or should not pass through the village of Pomeroy, which effectively was to commemorate an event that is centuries old and has no relevance at all to the North of today and, at the same time, not helping one bit to get talks underway which would help with the real problems which affect the lives of the citizens in the North. I still live in hope and I share the view of many Senators that the talks will again resume, hopefully in the autumn.
Senator Upton and others referred to young offenders and the problems there. I agree it is a matter for concern but I have to say that last week we had three court Bills. One in particular, the Courts (No. 1) Bill was very suitable for very effectively raising the problems of dealing with young offenders. Yet, very few Senators attended and spoke on those important Bills and there was plenty of time given for them.
Senator McDonald raised the question of motion 49. That is obviously for consideration in the next session.
In regard to Senator Kiely's comments about time, I would suggest that 15 minutes be agreed and obviously there can be a sharing arrangement as has happened in the past. The original hope was for a three hour debate. In fact, it is now a four hour debate. The Minister, Deputy O'Kennedy, will be present and will speak for approximately 20 minutes.
Senator Brendan Ryan referred to many of the points I have mentioned. Senator Ó Cuív and others raised the question of the Central Bank and the bank charges generally. This whole question of investment has been raised over the past number of weeks and I indicated there was no time for a debate because I was anxious that we would deal with legislation. Like other speakers last week and the week before, I regard the failure of a number of investment brokers as quite alarming with the loss of millions of pounds to genuine investors whether they be life savings or compensation awards, sale of properties or whatever. If you also consider the collapse of BCCI with a loss of over £1 billion to Irish investors in the past weeks, obviously it is a very worrying time. The alarming feature of BCCI as I see it is that we are told the total loss is of the order of £8 billion but the Bank of Ireland had BCCI on its list of authorised banks where local authorities could invest their surplus savings.
The collapse of BCCI must ring alarm bells generally throughout the financial world. All of this is doing very little for investment and the banking institutions generally. The whole area of bank charges, the Central Bank, investment brokers and the whole question of the collapse of a bank — we hope there is nothing else during the summer recess — is suitable for debate and I can assure the House it is something I will consider when we return after the summer recess.
I have dealt with Senator Costello's queries. The Senator also asked about the charter for Dublin. I have to say to the Senator I have no plans for a debate on this matter but if is a suitable motion for discussion in the House. I have no proposals for taking debate on the matter Senator Lydon raised.
Senator Staunton raised the question of the Altamont Bill and the time allocated. I would have to say to Senator Staunton and this was agreed with the Whips. As he and other Senators know, it is a private Bill and there is a separate set of Standing Orders of the Dáil and Seanad relative to Private Business which provides for the promotion and conduct of a private Bill through the House. These Standing Orders are completely separate from the Standing Orders under which the public business of the Seanad is conducted on a daily basis.
In regard to the Altamont Bill, it is Private Business; it must be taken first on the Order Paper and I am not sure if we can reorder for a later time. What I was going to suggest — and this will probably help Senator Howard as well with the Competition Bill — is that from 11.30 a.m. to 2.15 p.m. we will take the Competition Bill and from 2.15 p.m. to 2.45 p.m. we will take the Altamont Bill. We could have a sos then for 15 minutes. If it can be done we will do it that way. In regard to the Competition Bill there will be a rescheduling and I think the Minister would welcome this.
On a point of order, does the Leader of the House not have the discretion to take the Altamont Bill now regardless of time and get on with it, with the consent of the House?
If it were done the other way it would obviously be better.
The Standing Orders have set down the position in relation to Private Business as has been outlined by the Leader of the House. There is, of course, a precedent established in this House. Standing Orders can be departed from if we are to rely on the precedent and in that context the Leader of the House can order the business for 2 p.m. today, based on the precedent.
If it can be worked out, it is totally agreeable to us.
The precedent is there so it may be a guide to everybody.
I have also noted Senator McKenna's comments and Senator Harte's request for a debate on unemployment which obviously is something for the next session. Other Senators raised the question of civil liability again. I have to tell Senator Ó Fóighil it is not appropriate to the Order of Business. It is something again for Private Members' time which he might consider. I have noted carefully Senator Cullen's concern about the foreign affairs committee.
As this is the last sitting before the summer recess may I take this opportunity to wish you, a Chathaoirligh, the Leas-Chathaoirleach and all Senators, the Clerk Assistant of the Seanad and staff, the Official Reporters, all the media people, press, television and radio, and the ushers a very happy and enjoyable holiday.
Order of Business agreed to.