Vol. 130 No. 7
It is proposed to take Item No. 1 — the resumed debate on Statements on the Role of Seanad Éireann — until 6 p.m. There will be a sos between 6 p.m. and 6.30 p.m. From 6.30 p.m. to 8 p.m. we will take item No. 11, Motion No. 36, which reads:
That Seanad Éireann notes with concern the cost of motor and liability insurance; and requests the Minister for Industry and Commerce to take urgent steps to remedy the position.
Can the Leader of the House confirm the rumours which have been sweeping the House that he intends a major reshuffle of his front bench and that he may be about to give a chance to some of his backbenchers whose talents have not quite been recognised up to now? Would he put our minds at ease on that score?
On the Order of Business, I am proposing that we amend the Order of Business today to take, after Private Members' time, item No. 48. This refers to the debate on the Maastricht Summit. As this House knows, at the end of this month one of the most important European summits in our history will take place. It is very clear that the other House is not going to find time to debate that matter in any great detail and I believe it is vitally important that one House of the Oireachtas turns its attention to the implications of the Maastricht Summit. I would ask from the Leader of the House that either he accepts my amendment and that we start this debate this evening and continue it over the next week, or else that he gives me a definite, categoric assurance that item No. 48 will be taken next week. I am formally proposing to amend the Order of Business to take item No. 48 at the end of Private Members' time this evening.
May I also ask on the Order of Business the intention or the mind of the Leader of the House on the reform debate which is taking place, has been taking place over some weeks and obviously will continue? Is it the intention of the Leader of the House when it concludes either to come forward with a series of proposals of his own from the Government side, or is it his proposal to set up an all-party committee with a definite time frame — if I can use that phrase — within which to report on the changes which we all want? It would be a shame if this simply was a debate and nothing followed from it.
I note on the Order Paper today a commitment is now given to take the Register of Members of the Oireachtas Interests Bill on the first sitting day of the next session. I would like to ask the views of the Leader about the Suicide Bill. Will he give us a commitment to take the Suicide Bill, give us time this session to take it as a Private Members' Bill, to have it printed and have First Stage taken?
For the third week in succession I am raising with the Leader the question of a debate on the Maastricht Summit. I am concerned, as a legislator and a Member of this House that next month decisions will be taken about our neutrality, our functioning as part of the European Monetary Union, about foreign policy, about many aspects of social policy and especially the education area in which I am particularly interested, which will have an extraordinary impact on Irish life for the foreseeable future for as long as we remain in Europe. There has been no debate, no education and no understanding in respect of this and it is irresponsible that we should continue without having a full discussion on the topic. We are already running out of time; this time next month the summit will be over. I plead with the Leader of the House to make it clear that this item will be taken next week at the latest, if not today. He should heed the amendment proposed by Fine Gael.
On that same point, a Chathaoirligh, I would ask that you in your capacity as Cathaoirleach of the House would initiate the agreement and the procedure which has been approved by this House to allow representatives from the different groups from this country in the European Parliament to address this House during the course of that debate. We have proved that as a procedure it lies in your hands to initiate it and I would ask that in the event of this debate taking place there would be representatives from the European Parliament to give their views. The powers of the European Parliament will also be discussed in detail and decisions will be taken.
Speech.
It is not a speech; it is merely an index of the contents of what we might be addressing should we get to discuss this issue. It is interesting that people are so uneducated and so unaware of what is happening that they would see that as a speech. Somebody is going to be crying into their cups when this is over about not having had the opportunity to address these crucial issues. We are being irresponsible in not doing so.
I want also to raise the question of legislation. I asked for information on this issue last week and the week before. I did not get a response last week. I concede that when the Leader was giving his response I was not in the House, but I checked on the response given I ask again the specific question: what are the next two pieces of legislation that are going to be initiated in this House? We are entitled to know that and we are also entitled to say that if we do not know it somebody is not doing their business properly. It is an insult to the House that we are not able to prepare for legislation properly and correctly.
On the matter of allowing persons who are not Members of the House into the House to address the Seanad, as Senator O'Toole has stated that was agreed by the Committee on Procedure and Priviliges, subject to certain conditions. If it is intended to proceed with that arrangement it would be necessary for the Senator to put the request to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and have them adjudicate on it rather than through me.
All right.
May I ask the Leader if and when we are going to have a debate on the present political situation? In the recent past he indicated we might have such a debate. When can we anticipate the promised legislation on telephone tapping, which, I believe, was discussed at the weekend? Would the Leader agree there are many similarities between the problems of the Taoiseach and Mr. Jack Charlton in as much as they both seem to have fielded teams with many injured players?
While not wishing to dictate to the Leader of the House as to how he should order the business — for that reason I do not support the amendment — nevertheless I share the views expressed from the opposite side for the need for a debate on the Maastricht Summit. I expressed that view last week and I repeat it this week. If anything, the matter is even more urgent this week, given that there has been quite a perceptible shift in British views in relation to the summit and also the fact that there appears to be less than full commitment to economic and social cohesion within the Community. From our point of view, that would have very serious implications indeed.
The other matter which might be included in that debate, or perhaps might more appropriately be taken separately, is the whole question of the GATT and the Common Agricultural Policy. The GATT negotiations appear to be coming towards some sort of conclusion and again that has very profound implications not just for farming and agriculture but for the whole Irish economy. These are matters which we need to address. They could be addressed as part of the overall Maastricht agenda, or perhaps more approrpriately as a separate item.
Through the Leader of the House, may I first convey my congratulations to my constituency colleague, the new Minister for the Environment, Deputy O'Hanlon, and on a political level make the point to him that this must and should provide an opportunity to do something once and for all about the——
Potholes.
——road structure in this country in terms of funding from Europe, the upgrading of certain roads and a proper commitment from central Government. This is something that is causing a real crisis for many people. It is a particular problem in the Minister's constituency and it is a national problem. I would urge the Minister to take this in hand as an immediate priority.
Ba mhaith liom ceist a chur ar an Ceannaire i dtús báire faoi choiste ghnó na hEorpa — European Affairs Committee — atá geallta i gclár an Rialtais. An chomhchoiste den dá Theach a bheidh i gceist nó chóiste den Dáil amháin? An inseodh sé é sin dúinn?
It would be helpful to know whether the Europen Affairs Committee, which presumably is the nearest we are ever going to get to a Foreign Affairs Committee, will have membership from this House, and, if so, can the Leader ensure that the representation from this House will be sufficiently large to ensure that all the groups in the House are represented on it?
I vigorously support my colleagues in asking for an openended and extensive debate on the Maastricht Summit. I wish again to put on the record of the House that it seems to be the tradition of all Irish institutions that the more important an issue the less it should be debated in public. We saw that recently, but at least that was an internal Fianna Fáil matter. The Leader of the House told us he did not plan to have a debate on Northern Ireland. Apparently there is now a similar reluctance to have a debate on the forthcoming, in my view, awesomely negative consequences for this country of what will happen at Maastricht. I appeal to the Leader to allow a debate. There is no fund of expertise residing either in the Department of the Taoiseach or of Foreign Affairs on which they can rely for all perspectives on this. What bothers me is that there seems to be an increasing belief that the worst place one could discuss something is in the Houses of the Oireachtas. Will the Leader tell us if he will allow an open ended debate on the Maastricht Summit and, if he will not, will he at least tell us in some detail why not? Is it that we are not able, not good enough, or is it that he will not be let do so?
Finally, after another week of tragedy, I say again we should have a debate on Northern Ireland.
Hear, hear.
It is wrong in the extreme, a Chathaoirligh, as I have said a moment ago, that the minute an issue becomes urgent, important and sensitive, apparently we close down the democratic hatches and assume that secrecy and privacy is preferable. It is not. It simply leaves a monopoly of comment on Northern Ireland to those outside the Houses of the Oireachtas and that is wrong.
I agree with Senator O'Toole, particularly on the question of neutrality, the discussion on which is liable to start. The danger is this: it is a norm in life that the more you get out of an organisation the more you owe that organisation and the more that organisation will demand what is owed. Therefore, in terms of that criterion, we are at a very serious stage. We should get down to discussing the matter. Let us bear in mind that the more we get out of the Regional Fund or any other benefits and the more we are sucked into the organisation, the more we owe it and the greater the obligation we have to it. Therein lies the danger and Senator O'Toole is correct in sounding the warning.
Senator Manning wondered what way the Leader of the House will proceed when the Statements on the role of the Seanad are finished. I think it is little early to ask for an answer to that yet. There are many more contributions to be made on that matter yet. It might be necessary to have a discussion as to the best means of proceeding before the Government themselves come in with some proposal. We should have a say as to where we will go from here after the Statements have concluded.
As Fine Gael Seanad Spokesperson on Women's Affairs and a member of the Women's Rights Committee, I would like to express my dissatisfaction — and I hope the Leader will express this to the Taoiseach — that the Taoiseach has effectively halved the female representation at Cabinet level by the removal of——
That is not a matter for the Order of Business.
I think it is.
It is not a function of this House and commenting on matters that are relevant to the other House certainly is not in order.
I would like if the Leader of the House would ask the Taoiseach whether the Women's Affairs portfolio which Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn held is now gone or whether it will be given to one of the Ministers of State. I think it is important to say it now before the announcements are made.
Secondly, I would like to welcome the employment equality ruling which found that the Minister for Finance and the Revenue Commissioners had breached the Employment Equality Act in 1977. I welcome the fact that it now may open the door for women having left the Civil Service to be reinstated in their jobs. I applaud the woman from the mid-west, Miss Fionula Moran, who went to such trouble——
Not a matter for the Order of Business, either.
——to achieve this victory and also to applaud Sylvia Meehan of the Employment Equality Agency to bringing it to attention.
I would like to support Senator Manning in inquiring what is going to happen after the statements on the role of the Seanad. There was one Senator here who said that talk was all we should do. That was grand — talk, talk and more talk. I would like to know is it intended, as Senator Manning said, that the Government will come forward with proposals or an all-party committee. Six times in the past this matter has been discussed over the years since 1977 and there have been no fundamental changes. Can the Leader of the House guarantee that during the course of this year we will have no repeat of the incident we had here in the last week of the session before the summer recess when two Bills went through and it was perfectly obvious there was no question of an amendment because the Dáil had already gone into recess? There was the Local Government (Amendment) Bill where a guillotine was imposed. It is not acceptable and I ask the Leader of the House to assure us that will not happen during the course of this session or this year.
While joining my colleague in complimenting Deputy O'Hanlon on his elevation — I am not sure how they look at it — to the Department of the Environment, may I ask, through you, Sir, that instead of the Minister for the Environment being asked to deal with every little piffling pothole in the country that he would allow devolution. Is he going to implement the Local Government Bill, 1991, devolve power and let the local authorities look after the potholes?
It is not relevant to the Order of Business.
It was relevant for another Senator.
I pointed out to her that it was not relevant in her case either; the two of you are irrelevant. That is the bottom line.
It is only when the women start——
I am not interested in your petty disagreements. Senator Conroy.
There have been a number of debates in the Chamber on European affairs and I am sure there will be many more, including that on the Maastricht Summit, in due course. We pride ourselves on being good Europeans and we are rightly and naturally concerned at the very sad and appalling atrocities taking place in the North of Ireland. At this very moment as we speak there are atrocities, massacres, destruction of famous old buildings and a really horrible situation emerging in Croatia. There are one or two Irish officers trying to do what they can in the peace-keeping force. We had many calls here for a debate in relation to the Gulf War; eventually we had a very good debate and I hope the Leader of the House at some time will be able to see his way to making time available for such a debate despite the pressure of business. This is something that is happening now; people are being killed and we should do more than just wring our hands.
I would like to congratulate my colleague, Deputy Bertie Ahern, on his promotion to the Department of Finance. I am sure he will do a good job in it.
I would like to ask three questions all of which could be dealt with if we had reform of the operation of the Seanad. The first is in relation to the Maastricht Summit. It is necessary that we have a debate on that matter and I would like to know if we can have Members of the European Parliament present for that debate. My concern is twofold. Senator Harte referred to neutrality and my concern is equally in the context of the economic and social developments that have taken place and the statement by member states that they would see a two-tier system, Ireland being in the second tier.
The second question also relates to Seanad reform and the legislation coming before us. Since we started here this session we have not had a proper piece of legislation before us despite what the Leader of the House has told us that he intends to ensure that this House gets a fair share of legislation. All we have got is the Sea Pollution Act, which is a measure to implement an international protocol, and the Liability for Defective Products Bill relates to something we have to do in the European context. There is no domestic legislation being introduced here, or nothing of a substantial nature. These are important Bills but passing them is really a formality for us.
The third question is: when is the Leader of the House going to allow us to hold the debate on the political situation as he indicated? Five successive weeks in the Dáil have been taken up with matters relating to the leadership of the Government party. We now have new Ministers appointed and we cannot even rubberstamp it, we cannot discuss the matter at all. When are we going to have a debate on matters that concern the future of the Government and the future of the country?
On a point of order, I would like to make it clear that when I said I supported Senator Manning's amendment I was indicating I was seconding it.
I accepted that and allowed you to speak on two occasions on the Order of Business because of the fact that there was very considerable support for Senator Manning's amendment. I was going to remind the House to have it seconded if they so wished.
I have great sympathy for the view expressed here that the more important the issue the less likely it is to be debated. It all contributes to what we see and have been analysing for some time as a growing democratic deficit both in these Houses and between here and the European institutions generally. I add my voice strongly to the call for a debate on the Maastricht Summit as set out in Item No. 48 on the Order Paper. We ask for this in a non-combative way and through you, a Chathaoirligh, we ask the Leader of the House to have the debate before Maastricht.
The Taoiseach spoke last Wednesday and addressed the Irish Council of the European Movement in UCD. It was an excellent address on this very topic, but it should have been delivered in one of the Houses of Parliament. It brought us further down the road on the issues we are all concerned about. It referred to the powers of the European Parliament and the matter of neutrality and the whole political union area was very well and very sensitively dealt with by the Taoiseach. However, I have to register my strong objection that he could not have chosen one of the Houses of Parliament to deliver that most important address. We would love him to come and put on the record of this House his views, which we will have very little difficulty in supporting, and open a most important debate in this House on it. I always thought that one of the strengths of the Seanad over the Dáil was our ability to respond more quickly to national and international issues without being over-strictly fettered by political constraints of one kind or another. I urge the Leader to allow that debate, the request for which has come from all sides of this House.
We also support fully the urgent need for a debate on Northern Ireland and the Yugoslav crisis. We do little justice to our foreign affairs brief if we do not debate that as quickly as possible.
Again, as I said before in this House — I know it has been repeated on all sides again today in relation to what is happening in Maastricht — I have just one suggestion to make to the Leader in the context of the suggestions for a debate. I am not so sure whether it is practical or not. The Maastricht Summit is not going to confine itself to just one area of government, or indeed one area of activity, as it will impact on this country. There are, for example, serious defence implications, serious social implications under the Social Charter and, of course, economic implications. I am wondering if the Leader might consider having a debate which would encompass all of these matters under which the various Ministers would come into this House and expound the Government's views on specific areas. While I fully appreciate and indeed applaud the efforts to have the Taoiseach here as the Leader of the Government and as the person who will lead the Irish negotiations in Maastricht and beyond — I know all of us will be very anxious to have his views on this — I feel perhaps that in the interest of information generally, not only for the House but for the general public, there could be an accommodation. I am not sure how it could be formulated. However, I suggest to the Leader that perhaps he might include this in his discussions with the Whips when we are putting together the motion. I am sorry my good friend, Senator Ryan, could not hear me; usually I am accused of shouting.
I would like to support Senator Manning's request to the Leader to give time for a Second Stage reading to item No. 6, the Suicide Bill, 1991. I think all sections agree that something should be done in this area to bring the law in line with society's view in the 1990s. The law could be described as silly if it was not so tragic in this area.
I would also like to support Senator Ryan's request for a debate on Northern Ireland and in doing so to congratulate Dublin Corporation on their decision to not allow the mouthpiece of the men of violence a stage in the Mansion House, something I requested on several occasions this time 12 months ago.
With regard to this ongoing debate on the role of the Seanad, in which I propose to take part, I will be saying precisely the same things I said even before I was elected. We all know perfectly well how the Seanad should be reformed and could be reformed. We also all know perfectly well that it never will be reformed because it does not suit the political parties to engage in anything that would approach even minimal reform. That is the answer to the question.
You could have reserved the comments until you had an opportunity to speak.
May I also say something with regard to an item that was mentioned in passing, a very serious and important item raised by Senator Upton? I would like to ask the Leader of the House, in the light of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress and the Programme for Government and of the fact that over the weekend it was disclosed that three members of the Fianna Fáil Party, including a Cabinet Minister, believed their telephones to have been tapped — I am not going into the merits of that case — in the light of that situation and the undertaking given may I know precisely when the Bill dealing with telephone tapping will be introduced in this House?
Finally, I support the Senators who called for a debate on Northern Ireland. We are occasionally told that we must not have such a debate because we will exacerbate matters. How much further can they be exacerbated? In the past week or so a hospital was blown up and the bomb was brought in through the children's ward. Just in the past few days we had the other side apparently blowing up a mother and son. When will we have a debate on Northern Ireland? Are we just going to be fiddling while the rest of the country is in chaos and turmoil? There will never be a time when we can debate this unless we take ourselves seriously in our role as democratic representatives.
I support the call for a debate on the Maastricht Summit. The suggestion made by Senator Dardis was an excellent one. We should have a separate debate on the GATT and the Common Agricultural Policy. The GATT agreement is about to be concluded before the end of the year and the Common Agricultural Policy reform early next year. We should have a debate on these two subjects at the earliest opportunity.
I agree with Senator Doyle when she said that there was a democratic deficit in the Community. It is a growing one. As one who worked there for five years, I assure the House that I am very concerned that we are being ruled more and more not by politicians in Brussels but by civil servants who are not accountable and we are suffering the consequences one way or another. We should make our views known on that subject. I am very sorry our country could not be represented by a Minister on Monday at the discussions on economic and monetary union due to internal problems in one party. It was regrettable. I am also very sorry that the largest county in Ireland still does not have a senior Minister at the Cabinet table. I refer, of course, to County Cork.
We have no function in the matter.
I will refer to two issues very briefly. One is the question of the foreign affairs committee which a number of us have been seeking vociferously for some months. My understanding is that recently the Taoiseach gave it as his view that what he described as a European affairs committee might be established. I put it to the Leader of the House that this is not what Members sought or are seeking. If it is a European affairs committee presumably the intention would be to confine debate to issues that relate to the European Economic Community. If this were the case it would render ineligible for discussion issues relating to the present strife in Yugoslavia, issues in Russia, eastern Europe, the GATT negotiations particularly as they affect the United States and the implications of the Common Agricultural Policy here. Events in countries in Europe such as Switzerland, Austria, Finland, Sweden, the Norwegian fish issue, issues relating to the Third and Fourth World including the Middle East and the Palestine question could not be discussed. I ask the Leader of the House to bring my comments, which no doubt many other Senators agree with to the Taoiseach and explain that what we seek is a more-widely based foreign affairs committee. We are the only country in western Europe without such a committee.
I add my voice to those of my colleagues who have sought an urgent debate in relation to the Maastricht talks. Obviously if a foreign affairs committee existed and there was a structure in this Parliament for discussion of these pertinent issues we would not be wasting so much time on the Order of Business. It is pathetic that the structure is such that we need to press an issue like this and waste 40 minutes of our time when it should be patently obvious that there is an urgency about such a debate given the issues that are involved.
I am extremely disappointed that for the first time in the history of this State the dominant political party in this country have chosen not to appoint a Minister from the province of Connaught.
Do not be overly depressed about it.
I join with other members in asking the Leader of the House to have a discussion on affairs in the North of Ireland. I understand the Leader of the House may have some difficulty. We have Anglo-Irish Conference and we have an excellent Minister for Foreign Affairs. We have very good ongoing negotiations. However, by avoiding discussion in this House of the problems we have given the wrong signal. I travel through the North to come to the House and the main artery is now blocked for 12 hours a day.
Order.
I would welcome him if he made a contribution. We can only do good by having such a debate. I sincerely ask the Leader of the House to try to organise a debate on the North of Ireland because it is quite some time since we have had the opportunity to discuss the North.
I was going to formally second Senator Manning's motion in relation to the Maastricht Summit and I thank Senator O'Toole for doing so. As Senator Fallon has in recent days been able to dictate and get his way with the Taoiseach in relation to certain events, I am sure he will be able to arrange for such a debate forthwith.
The other item I would like to mention on the Order of Business would merit consideration by all Members and that is the question of local authorities discussing their estimates in the absence of any notification from the Department of the Environment.
Hear, hear.
I appeal to the Leader of the House to talk to the new Minister and have this matter rectified immediately. It is crazy.
Just to remind Senator Raftery that two weeks ago we in Cork adopted the Taoiseach as one of our own. In view of the fact that my bank manager is becoming less friendly, my charges are mounting and my creditworthiness is very much in doubt, may I ask the Leader of the House when we might have a debate on bank charges in Ireland?
Would it be possible to have a debate between now and the Christmas on hunger in the Third World and in many African countries? Everybody knows there is a huge problem and yet we do not appear to be doing much about it because of other pressures.
What is the Government's policy in relation to the people of Croatia? Surely we are not like the rest of the world, leaving those people to be annihilated? I would appreciate it if the Leader of the House would indicate whether we could have an opportunity to debate Government policy in relation to the famine in a number of African countries.
I support my colleague, Senator McGowan, in asking for a debate on the Six Counties in view of the continuing discrimination that occurs there which was ably documented in a recent publication and on the question of closed roads which I use frequently. The closure of the roads is a severe inconvenience to local farmers and other people living around that area.
The Taoiseach has been criticised for not appointing more women to the Cabinet and although we have many fine ladies in Fianna Fáil who are Cabinet material, that suggestion in some way reflects badly upon the two who were appointed——
That is not a matter for the Order of Business.
Deputy Davern is a man of considerable ability and certainly the Donegal man, Deputy McDaid, will make a wonderful Minister——
The House agrees with the Senator but I cannot allow discussion on it.
It will be interesting on the extradition question.
I can inform Senator Manning that I am very happy with my front bench and there is no reshuffling taking place.
I am sure they are relieved.
A number of Senators raised the question of Maastricht and EC matters at present being debated. Senators are aware that in the Programme for Government it is proposed to publish a White Paper on the new union treaty which it is expected will result from the current negotiations in the Intergovernmental Conferences on political union and on economic and monetary union. These negotiations are due to conclude in Maastricht in early December. The new union treaty will be ratified by member states in the course of 1992 so as to come into effect on 1 January 1993. It is most likely that a referendum will be held in this country to enable the union treaty to be ratified. It is the Government's intention that there should be a full and wide-ranging public discussion on the issue involved in the new treaty so that the referendum can take place after a fully informed debate on this further stage of European integration that will be of such crucial importance to the future prosperity and wellbeing of this country.
Senators are aware that even this week there are ongoing Intergovernmental Conferences taking place. Today there is an informal meeting in preparation for the Maastricht Summit so obviously I could not — and it would be wrong for me to do so — agree to a debate here today with this matter being discussed.
Why?
What I propose to do is to have discussions as soon as possible with the Minister for Foreign Affairs when he returns. I am as anxious as anyone to have a debate on the Maastricht Summit as soon as possible. There is a Private Members Motion No. 48 in the name of Fine Gael Members on the Order Paper. I would prefer to have it in Government time. It is my intention to do so. The Dáil will discuss the Maastricht Summit and I will endeavour to have a debate on the Maastricht Summit as soon as possible in this House.
Why not before the summit?
It will be before it.
Before the summit?
Yes, that is my intention but I cannot give a specific date.
The queries raised by Senator Manning and others referred to the ongoing debate on reform of the Seanad. The proposal was that we would note what Senators said, refer it to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and take it from there. That is the way I understood it.
A question was raised by Senators Manning and Neville regarding the Suicide Bill. The position is that the Minister for Justice will very shortly seek the approval of the Government to circulate a Criminal Law Bill and that Bill will provide for the abolition of the offence of suicide and make the necessary ancillary provisions. The Bill will also abolish the present division of offences into felonies and misdemeanours and do away with obsolete forms of punishment of prisoners such as penal servitude, hard labour, whipping and prison divisions. At present suicide is a felony at common law. It was regarded at one time as self-murder and it carried with it certain consequences which are now obsolete, such as forfeiture of goods and chattels of the deceased and denial of a Christian burial. Attempted suicide is a misdemeanour.
In this enlightened age we would all agree that it is inappropriate for society to treat suicide as a crime under the law. Indeed, there were proposals to abolish the offence as far back as 1967 but they came to nothing. It is my very strong view that it is undesirable and wrong that criminalisation should add to the tragedy and the loss which accompanies such events, as well as compounding the grief of the family and friends of the deceased.
The Government agree with the principle of Senator Neville's Bill and I congratulate him on his interest in this matter. I suggest that in view of the Government's proposal to introduce a Bill in the wider context of crimes generally he should withdraw his Bill and await publication of the Government Bill which the Minister for Justice hopes to publish as soon as possible. The Criminal Law Bill will deal with other matters relating to the abolition of suicide which are not covered under Senator Neville's Bill.
Senators O'Toole, Upton and others raised the question of Maastricht. I have replied to that.
Senator Upton asked for a debate on the political situation. I have no proposals at this time for such a debate. He also asked about the Bill on telephone tapping. I understand the Minister for Justice indicated that this Bill would be taken in this session. Senator Dardis referred to the Maastricht Summit and to the Common Agricultural Policy. Most Senators would like a debate on the Common Agricultural Policy. They have had one recently in the Dáil and I hope to have one here as soon as possible.
Senator O'Reilly congratulated the Minister for the Environment. Senator Brendan Ryan asked about the European affairs committee. That is referred to and promised in the Programme for Government and I understand it will proceed. The foreign affairs committee will come onstream as soon as possible.
In regard to Northern Ireland, my position remains the same and I have no plans for a debate on it. Senator Harte referred to the role of the Seanad. The other points raised were not appropriate to the Order of Business. Senator Conroy referred to the European affairs committee and to Croatia. I have no proposals in that regard. I have dealt with the queries raised by Senator Costello.
In reply to Senator Doyle, I allowed debates on many national and international issues and I think her comments were a little unfair. I have no proposals for a debate on Yugoslavia. I noted Senator Norris's comments on Northern Ireland and the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. Senator Rafferty referred to the GATT and the Common Agricultural Policy and I have indicated my position there. I have indicated my position in regard to Senator Staunton's queries. Senator McGowan referred to Northern Ireland. I will take up with the new Minister for-the Environment Senator Cosgrave's comments in regard to the rates support grant. As regards Senator O'Keeffe's query, as soon as possible we will have a debate on the banking system.
Senator McDonald asked for a debate on the Third World before Christmas. Obviously that is an important issue and something I will consider. Senator Lydon asked about a debate on Northern Ireland to which I have replied.
Senator Manning moved an amendment to the Order of Business, "That Motion 48 be inserted after Motion 36". It has been duly seconded. Is the amendment being pressed?
Yes.
