The business for today is Item No. 1 — Statements on the Role of Seanad Éireann. In regard to this matter I do not wish to impose a limit on the speaking time. However, in the knowledge that there may be many Senators wishing to speak, I ask that there would be an element of brevity if at all possible; but that is a matter totally and absolutely for the Senators. We continue Statements on the Role of Seanad Éireann to 6 p.m. We will have a sos from 6 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. and from 6.30 p.m. to 8 p.m. we will continue with Item No. 10, Motion No. 40.
Order of Business.
Concern has been expressed to me about the duration of the Order of Business last week. I want to say that last week I attempted, because it was our first day back, to afford a reasonable opportunity to everybody. I ask for the co-operation of all because if the Chair does not get that type of co-operation then the Order of Business will become the day's business as occurred last week. Therefore, I ask the Members to give me co-operation and I will be glad to reciprocate.
The Chair knows he always has the co-operation of this side of the House on these matters.
On the Order of Business, first I would like to thank the Leader of the House for the speed with which he responded to this debate today. I would like to ask him if he would, as requested last week, give us a more precise programme of the business to be taken this session and if he would let me know the current state of the Altamont Bill which has left this House.
Finally, last week I asked the Leader if he would countenance an early debate on Northern Ireland. It is clear there is a major change of British policy underway. It is clear there is a political vacuum. It is high time that we in this House at least had an opportunity to debate what is a matter of great importance to all of us. I am sure there is all-party support for that debate.
It would facilitate the Order of Business if we did not have to repeat the same questions week after week. I am sure you will appreciate that. Again, I have to begin by repeating a question I asked last week and that is if the Leader of the House would outline for us the programme of legislation which is to be initiated in this House during this session. I would like a simple list, either today or tomorrow, on that.
At the moment the proposed changes in the Treaty of Rome are going to have a major impact on the many aspects of Irish life — monetary, financial, political and social — and it is high time that we had a specific debate, not just on developments over the past six months as we already had, but a discussion on the proposed changes in the draft Treaty as it is at the moment. There is no point in having this debate after next month when it will be signed, sealed and delivered; now is the time the parliamentarians can have an input into it. I ask that we have an early debate on the proposals that are included in the draft Treaty. We indicated last week that we wanted certain movement on some of the items of legislation and we will be pushing that.
First, I propose that Item No. 42 be taken today and, secondly, may I ask the Leader of the House to give us an indication of the position in relation to the introduction of the Animal Remedies Bill to control the use of the angel dust and indeed the situation in relation to the proposed legislation regarding the control of dogs.
At a time when there is much comment and controversy about the hoarding of treasures, which would appear to run counter to the recent legislation, may I take this opportunity to ask the Leader of the House to convey the appreciation of the House of the magnificent gesture of the Hunt family in donating a priceless collection to the State? It will enhance very greatly the city of Limerick and indeed the State as a whole. It is marvellous to see a family, who by and large are not extremely wealthy, making such a magnificent gesture. One of the items of this collection is one of the 30 pieces of silver. It is very appropriate in this day and age that there be comment on that type of money. It is a magnificent gesture by the Hunt family and it is appropriate that this House should acknowledge it.
May I ask the Leader of the House if it is proposed in the coming term to have a specific debate on the health services? The reason I raise this matter is that since the summer recess, or rather since our last sittings last year, not alone has there been no improvement but there has been a notable deterioration in the sense that waiting lists continue for a whole range of services, ranging from by-pass operations, orthopaedic care, etc. I would put it to the Leader of the House that this must be a national priority area and something worthy of discussion by this House. I commend it to him as something that will give people confidence in the role of the Seanad if they know a matter like that is being debated here.
May I again raise the issue of the banking system in this country? I acknowledge that the Leader's response last week was that it could be discussed under economic issues. However, I am now quite sure there is a major level of discontent among Irish people about the hidden charges being operated by the banking system particularly in relation to mortgages and the pressure being put on people to engage in other activities, as well as the charges being operated for people going to their bank managers to discuss loans.
A question to the Leader, please.
In view of all, it is very appropriate on the day that is in it — a day that we are talking about reform of the Seanad — that the Leader of the House would respond to my request, given the fact that there is no ministerial responsibility in this matter, that statements by Members be allowed to express their concern on this major issue in the very near future.
During the prayer before the Order of Business and which is enjoined on us by Standing Orders I was wondering whether the august personage to whom our daily entreaties are addressed is listening at all, in view of the awful state of the country? I think the Leader of the House might well refer this matter to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges to see whether this ritual should be continued.
Tá ceist eile ar an gCeannaire. Tá ráfla millteanach ag dul timpeall go bhfuil Aire na Gaeltachta chun éirí as oifig ar fad. Dá mbeadh an scéal seo fíor chuirfeadh sé brón agus briseadh croí ar Ghaeil. Ba mhaith liom go ndeimhneodh nó go mbréagnódh an Ceannaire an scéal sin, mar tá sé an-tabhachtach go deo.
May I ask the Leader of the House to allow time to discuss what I consider to be a major problem at the moment, the disposal of toxic waste. We have people marching out at the gate and all over the nation and especially in the part of the world I come from. There is a lot of controversy up there over the siting of an incinerator to burn toxic waste. People are suggesting that it be sited elsewhere. It is a matter of national concern and I ask the Leader to have it discussed in this House. If the disposal of toxic waste can be discussed at every crossroads, I think it is a subject that should merit discussion in this House.
Tacaim leis an méid a dúirt an Seanadóir Murphy faoi Aire na Gaeltachta ach amháin gurbh fhearr liom ceist a chur an bhfuil Aire na Gaeltachta ann áit éigin, ceist a chuir an Seanadóir Ó Foighil, ó am go ham nó——
Aire na Gaeltachta is not relevant to the Order of Business.
Ní mise a chuir tús leis an chaint faoi Aire na Gaeltachta.
And I do not think we should waste time on it.
Má cheadaítear dom, ba mhaith liom chomh maith tacú le Senator O'Keeffe. The banking system is now arguably the single greatest disincentive to enterprise in this country. It has got away scot-free for years as it operates its cosy cartel. I agree with Senator O'Keeffe that we should have a full-scale debate on the appalling cartel that masquerades as a banking system in this country.
In the light of the decision of the Minister for Foreign Affairs to abolish the Advisory Committee on Development Co-operation, I ask the Leader if he will allow us to have a debate on this extremely important issue if for nothing else than to allow those of us who are embarrassed by the shameful position our Government have brought us to at least to register our disapproval. We have now the most mean-minded Government in western Europe in terms of overseas aid. It is an issue that has sneaked through successive Oireachtas and successive years without a serious discussion and I ask the Leader to allow a debate on the matter.
In conclusion, I would like to move an amendment to the Order of Business — and I hope that the Members opposite, in their increasing capacity to think freely and independently, might actually get as far as taking a decision to allow a Bill to be printed without approval from higher up the system — that Item No. 8 be taken at the commencement of business. This entails the publication, not the debate, and printing of the Bill entitled An Act to establish a register of Members' interest. If Item No. 8 is taken first and assuming it is not opposed, it will take no more than ten seconds. I cannot understand the continuing resistance to it and I hope it is not a symptom of how seriously Seanad reform is being taken. I move formally yet again, as I will every week until it is agreed, "That Item No. 8 be taken at the commencement of business."
I also join the other Senators in asking for statements on the banking system because constituents are definitely complaining about hidden charges and so on. As public representatives, we should be able to discuss these matters. I should also like to say that I take grave exception to Senator Murphy's remarks. They were unnecessary and most mischievous.
I am sure the Chair will agree with me that whatever about the rest of us, God is well able to look after him or herself.
There is a motion on the Order Paper in my name about Nicky Kelly. Does the fact that you allowed an Adjournment debate on the matter rule this out for discussion for another six months? It does not. I just wanted to clear that up.
Private Members' business is not repetitious of an Adjournment motion.
I was not clear on that. Senator McKenna congratulated the Hunt family on their munificence. That is very appropriate. It was a very remarkable donation. On that cultural level I am sure, a Chathaoirleach, you will find it appropriate briefly for us to send our congratulations and best wishes to a former Member of this House, Brian Friel, on the production of Dancing at Lughnasa in New York. This is not a trivial matter. After all, a play of that standard and excellence reaches an enormous audience and becomes a showcase for the Irish people in New York and I am sure the people would wish that message to be sent.
I wish to point out that we agreed in the past that the traditional practice in the House was that words of congratulations and words of sympathy in appropriate cases were to come from the Leader of the House. While you may very rightly send your good wishes, we must remind ourselves of the function of the Leader of the House in this matter. It is also correct that he should be advised on such matters before he comes into the House.
I stand reproved. I was aware of that ruling in regard to messages of condolence but I had not realised it was for congratulations as well. That seems to be quite logical. If there was any discourtesy, I apologise to the Leader of the House for that; but I am sure he will consider it appropriate that a message be sent.
Finally, may I formally second the amendment to the Order of Business proposed by my colleague, Senator Brendan Ryan.
I would like to ask the Leader of the House the same question I asked him the last day, namely, if he would see what items of the business intended for this session could be initiated in this House as distinct from being initiated in the Dáil. I would like to have a positive answer to that question. There is agreement on both sides of the House that we have a debate on the banking system. Everybody would agree that they certainly have been operating a monopoly in a cartel to the detriment of the farming community, the business community and indeed to private borrowers as well.
In the context of the reform of the Seanad, a matter we are about to discuss, it is a pity we cannot discuss current issues, such as the proposal that the Advisory Council on Development Co-operation be abolished by the end of this year. The reason that is given is that it would save money, but there is no money really spent because all the members are there in a voluntary capacity. It is a very independent body and has pointed out the fact that Ireland is at the bottom of the table in terms of the ratio of development aid to gross national product. That is a matter of current concern that it would be well worhtwhile our being able to debate here in the House.
Finally, I second the proposal by Senator Upton that we amend the Order of Business to take item No. 42 at the beginning of business for the reasons I mentioned the last day. The Companies Act refers specifically in section 194 to penalties to be imposed for non-disclosure of interest by directors and certain individuals, and I can name one, Michael Smurfit, has now indicated that he did not disclose his interest. It is a matter of concern for this House that inquiries are being established but that the ultimate stage towards prosecution, where the law specifically demands it, is not being implemented. I would like to second the motion that item No. 42 be taken as the first item on the Order of Business.
A number of Senators, Senator Manning included, asked for a programme for the session ahead. As I indicated last week, we have a number of important pieces of legislation which have been published. I mentioned the Patents Bill, the Health (Family Planning) Bill, Milk (Regulation of Supply) Bill, the Roads Bill, 1991, an Electoral Bill which is a local government Bill, the Irish Land Commission (Dissolution) Bill, the two Education Bills — the Dublin Institute of Technology Bill and the Regional Technical Colleges Bill. We have a Criminal Damages Bill and one that is just about to conclude in the Dáil, Liability for Defective Products Bill. There is a long list of ten or 11 Bills that are expected to be published in this session. That includes a Bill that has been referred to by Senator Upton. In fairness to him, he has been consistent in asking for the amendment of the Animal Remedies Act, 1956. It is a Bill which effectively increases the penalties for abuse of animal medicines. He also asked about the legislation for the control of dogs. That is legislation, Senator Upton, that will require you to put a lead on your Rottweiler or some of the tough little terriers that you keep in your place. We also have an Industrial Development Bill, a Criminal Law Bill, a Housing Bill and a further Local Government Bill modifying and speeding up planning appeal procedures. There is a fairly long list of Bills there for us. I can assure the House, as I have said many times, that Senator Wright, the Government Whip, and I will be actively pursuing the initiation of Bills in this House. We have been consistent in this matter and will continue to do so.
Senator Manning referred again to a debate on Northern Ireland. I have no plans in regard to that matter. The Senator knows my views on the subject. I still live in hope that talks will start there. The Senator also asked about the Altamont Bill. I can inform him that Dáil Éireann has been asked to concur with Seanad Éireann in its resolution communicated to it in July this year to consider setting up a joint committee of both Houses to deal with the Altamont Bill. When we hear from the Dáil we will select our people from the Seanad for that committee.
I have given a reply to Senator O'Toole regarding initiation of Bills. He specifically asked for a debate on proposed changes in the Treaty of Rome. I understand his concern and it is probably something we will endeavour to take on board as soon as possible.
I have given a fairly detailed reply to Senator Upton's queries. I cannot take Item No. 42. Senator McKenna had comments; they were not questions. In reply to Senator O'Reilly, I have no proposal at this point in time — but it might change — for a debate on the health services. Senator O'Keeffe has been extremely consistent in looking for a debate on the banking system. I agree with his interpretation: I suggested some time ago that we would take it and perhaps we would incorporate it into a debate on the economy. From what I read in the papers, what my colleagues tell me and what I know myself, I am of the view that such a debate would be appropriate to the House. I can assure Senator O'Keeffe that I will take it on board and have that debate, or statements as he called it, as soon as possible in the House.
I have no comment to make in regard to Senator Murphy's comments. Senator McGowan again has raised an important matter, the question of the disposal of toxic waste. It is particularly relevant to his county and is something I will consider and come back to him on the matter.
Senator Brendan Ryan asked for a debate on overseas aid, as did other speakers. I will consider it, but at this time I have no proposals. However, as I said, it is something I will think about and consider over the next few weeks. Item No. 8 deals with a register of Members interests. Senator Ryan knows that I, no more than many other Senators, have nothing to hide. We do this at county council level, but I have made the point that it is specifically referred to in the new Programme for Government and obviously the Government will, in time, do something positive in regard to this.
The Government do not run this House.
Senator Kiely has given support for a debate on the banking system. Senator Norris raised the question of Nicky Kelly, which was indeed on the Adjournment here last week, and he seconded the amendment to the Order of Business. Senator Costello referred to overseas aid, which I have already mentioned. That concludes the questions, a Chathaoirligh. The Order of Business, as I understand it, is that we take Item No. 1.
We have two amendments to the Order of Business. Amendment No. 1 is in the name of Senator Upton, "That Item No. 10, Motion No. 42, be inserted before Item No. 1." Is the amendment being pressed?
Yes.
Question put: "That item No. 10, Motion 42, be inserted before item No. 1."
The Seanad divided: Tá, 7; Níl, 27.
Tá
- Costello, Joe.
- Murphy, John A.
- Norris, David.
- O'Toole, Joe.
- Ryan, Brendan.
- Ryan, John.
- Upton, Pat.
Níl
- Bennett, Olga.
- Bohan, Eddie.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Byrne, Sean.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Conroy, Richard.
- Dardis, John.
- Kiely, Rory.
- Lydon, Don.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McGowan, Paddy.
- McKenna, Tony.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Fallon, Sean.
- Farrell, Willie.
- Fitzgerald, Tom.
- Foley, Denis.
- Haughey, Seán F.
- Honan, Tras.
- Keogh, Helen.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- O'Brien, Francis.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- Ormonde, Donal.
- Ryan, Eoin David.
- Wright, G.V.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Upton and Costello; Níl, Senator Wright and Fitzgerald.
Question declared lost.
Amendment No. 2, "That Item No. 8 be taken at the commencement of business", is in the name of Senator Ryan. Is amendment No. 2 being pressed?
Yes.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Order of Business agreed to.