It is proposed to take all Stages of item No. 1 — the Liability for Defective Products Bill, 1991 — to 6 p.m. to have a sos between 6 p.m. and 6.30 p.m. followed by the Fine Gael Private Members' Bill, the Suicide Bill, 1991, for one hour and a half.
Order of Business.
On the Order of Business, may I say to the Leader of the House that as we are speaking there is a body of a person who was shot brutally last night lying on the roadside in County Armagh. It is the latest in a list of unspeakable crimes that have taken place on both sides over the past number of months, and yet it is as if it was happening in a different country. Over and over again, I have asked if we could have a discussion in this House on Northern Ireland and also hear from our Government their views towards helping to achieve a solution in Northern Ireland. May I once again ask the Leader of the House if he would give us the guarantee of a debate on Northern Ireland before Christmas.
I am very puzzled that at the beginning of this session we were told there was a very heavy corpus of legislation to be introduced in this session but so far we have had only one small Bill and one bad Bill. May I ask the Leader what other legislation we are going to get this session? If there are other Bills ready — there is a Family Planning Bill, for example, and other Bills — why can they not be brought to this House? We are waiting for legislation. The whole purpose of this House, above everything else, is that we discuss Bills in detail. I wish to complain to the Leader of the House about the paucity of legislation and ask him to do something about it.
May I also ask the Leader of the House if the enthusiasm which was shown last week for a debate on the banking system will be translated into a debate in the foreseeable future?
I would like to pick up the same item which was raised by Senator Manning and that is the question of legislation which I have now raised for a fourth week in a row. I have to say to the Leader of the House, without in any sense denigrating his office, that I feel this House has been treated with contempt and I think he has been treated with contempt by the Government. The lack of legislation in this House over the past number of months has been pathetic. It certainly belies all that has been said about the need to introduce legislation. I have consistently asked the Leader of the House to outline the legislation it was proposed to introduce in this House. It is quite clear the Government continue to treat with contempt the efforts of the Leader of this House to have legislation introduced in this House and the situation at this stage is totally unacceptable. We are being pushed out to the periphery of Irish politics and it is no wonder people question our role and our relevance.
We are wasting time. Yet, we will again find ourselves before the end of this session trying to rush through legislation which we will be told is needed to be enacted with great urgency and we will have legislation being processed without getting due consideration. It is disgraceful and I think the Leader is failing us.
I forecast five weeks ago the need for a debate on the Maastricht Summit. I prefaced my comments on it last week and the week before by saying that I fully believed the Leader of the House would not get a debate in this House until it had first been debated in the other House and I have been proved right on that one. It is the old story. This is an issue which is going to affect every aspect of Irish life, socially, educationally, politically, in terms of foreign policy, sovereignty, neutrality. Yet, half of the people know nothing about it and we have not even discussed it. It is disgraceful that the Leader has also failed us on that one. I wonder about the relevance of what we are doing here at this stage. I believe we have lost touch with what is happening out there.
We have not.
It might be different down in Clare.
May I support the call for a debate on Northern Ireland? Things are in a terrible state up there and I cannot see how a debate in this House could make things worse. For that reason I am hopeful the Leader of the House might reconsider the attitude he has taken to this debate and perhaps accede to the request to hold it.
May I also ask the Leader if he is prepared to have a debate on the problems of vandalism in the Clondalkin area of Dublin? It is a major problem and whole communities are in a dreadful state because of it. I certainly think a debate on that topic would be useful, given what we have seen in the past few days and particularly the appalling attacks that have been made on the Garda and the fire service.
I rise, as I know other people in the House would like to do, to condemn totally the atrocities that have been carried out by satellites of the Israelis in the southern part of Lebanon. Over many months we have heard the Israelis condemn the Arabs for their terrorist activities all over the Middle East, yet they are arming, clothing and paying an army which is called the DFF, de facto forces, in the south of Lebanon. We ask that this House totally condemn the activities of the Israeli Government in their payment of the de facto forces in southern Lebanon who daily are committing atrocities not alone against the natives of southern Lebanon but in the past couple of weeks they have killed an Irish soldier and severely injured another Irish soldier.
These people are Israeli funded and Israel should be condemned. They are operating against the wishes of the United Nations. Could we extend a vote of sympathy here to the family of a nine year old girl who was brutally murdered? After her murder her family were sent back to their house and the South Lebanese Army blew up the house and the mother of that child had to have her leg amputated——
While the House would be at one with you probably in relation to the death of the nine year old child, at the same time it is not wise that we should establish a precedent here to pass votes of sympathy in that type of area.
I say I think it would be appropriate for the House to extend a vote of sympathy to the family and indeed I wish to extend a vote of sympathy to the Chief of Staff on the death of Corporal McCarthy.
The House will decide that.
On a point of Order, I do not disagree with the sentiments at all, but there was a ruling in the House some short time ago that all votes of sympathy would be handled in a particular way.
I want to thank Senator Manning for making that comment. At the same time we have procedures well established and the types of votes of sympathy and the areas in which they are made are also well established. However, if the House wants to alter or change that situation, I will be guided by the House. In the meantime I think we will have to adhere to the established practice.
I wish to raise two matters with the Leader of the House. The first is in relation to the business for today. Regarding Item No. 1, Liability for Defective Products Bill, 1991, while I see no reason why this matter should not be concluded or be very close to conclusion today, I do not want a situation to arise in which a decision of the House is arrived at that all Stages must be concluded today.
The second point I want to raise with the Leader of the House is that on 29 May last this House, by resolution, decided to set up a public inquiry, a tribunal of inquiry, into the meat processing industry. We did this in the public interest. I ask the Leader to make a considered statement to the House — maybe not even today — as to the extent the public interest is being represented or is not being represented at that inquiry.
Again, I have to point out that we are dealing with the Order of Business. I do not want to cut across Senator Howard as he has always been very co-operative but I would like to point out that that is a matter for the tribunal and not for this House. It would be unwise for this House to get into any debate on matters associated with the tribunal because of the usual practice that has been well established in relation to such inquiries.
I do not want to be in conflict with the Chair and I have no such intention, but I feel that there might be a misunderstanding as to what my objective is here. My objective is this. In the last analysis, we were the guardians of the public interest and considerable confusion has existed as to the extent that the public interest is represented there. I understand some finality was brought to the matter in the past day or two to the extent that it was decided counsel for the Attorney General would represent the public interest. But a number of weeks have gone by and, therefore, it is implicit in the decision arrived at that the public interest was not taken care of during those weeks. I am asking the Leader will he consider——
The Leader has no function in this matter and neither has the House. I want to make that quite clear. I cannot allow any further discussion in respect of that matter.
May I join with other Senators in asking the Leader of the House again to provide time to discuss the atrocities in Northern Ireland, the revolting kidnappings, murders, and other acts? At present many innocent people are going about their normal business in fear, because moving about in the dark winter evenings in the North at present is a dangerous business. I am trying to explain to the Leader that people who are not involved and people who do not support violence in the North are finding life nearly impossible. A person would be afraid to go out after dark because of the atrocities being committed by the IRA. This is a priority matter and if we continue to refuse to discuss it in this House then I believe we are not aware of the position. Far too many Senators do not realise the importance of having a debate on what is happening in the North of Ireland at present.
I agree with my colleagues who are calling for a debate on Northern Ireland. I do not believe that democracy is ever served by not talking about things.
I do not often do it, but I took the liberty of sending something to all my colleagues in this House and to which Senator Lanigan kindly referred: a specific and graphic account of an atrocity in southern Lebanon, which he has described. I agree with him that we should specifically refer to this. I do not want to enter into an argument with you, a Chathaoirligh. The account is graphic in itself, but there is a quote from an Irish Army officer which says there will be no condemnation. Therefore, both for the sake of this nine year old girl whose chest was blown apart by either an Israeli soldier or one of their allies, and for the sake of the morale of our troops in southern Lebanon who are trying to keep the peace, we ought to condemn this atrocity. It was done within earshot of Irish troops, one of whom was killed recently trying to do his job. It is not good for their morale and it is not fair if we who commend them so often here do not respond to their obvious frustration, their obvious annoyance and their deep sense of not being able to do their job. What we can do is say that when a small child, is murdered, it is murder no matter what the pretences of the Government responsible. We can do that for the sake of her family and also for the sake of our troops. I fully agree with Senator Lanigan that this is to be condemned completely.
I support Senator McGowan in asking the Leader of the House for a debate on the Six Counties. Like Senator McGowan, I too drive through the Six Countes every weekend. One never knows when a road is going to be closed or open. The people there suffer and, as Senator Ryan said, democracy is never served by not debating a subject.
I would also ask the Leader to have a debate on the Maastricht Summit. I believe the other House is being afforded one next week. There are many issues which need to be debated such as defence, subsidiarity, majority voting and so on. We need to look at these matters very carefully. We will be joining in political union with an organisation whose Court of Human Rights recently defined murder of the unborn as a service. We need to debate this matter openly and publicly to see whether we can obtain a derogation on this or a protocol. I ask for a debate on that matter.
I support fully Senator Lanigan's comments on the violence being perpetrated in south Lebanon by paramilitary allies of the Israeli Government who are directly funded by them. He spoke very eloquently and it would be superfluous for me to extend it further. The Irish Government should take a very strong stand on that issue. Not only are they murdering and maiming people in that part of the world, but they are doing the same to our troops who are in that region.
In relation to the Maastricht Summit, which is due to take place on 10 December, would the Leader of the House agree that it is an outrage to the parliamentary institutions of this State that while we speak today we do not know, officially, whether we are going to debate Maastricht. My understanding is — and I have been told unofficially — that we are to debate it next week, but I think that is putting out fires. Even if the Maastricht debate takes place next week, we have to order our business in a much more appropriate manner if serious issues arise in the future.
I put it to the Leader of the House that the purpose of the Maastricht debate in this House is not the self-aggrandisement of us as Senators nor is it the articulation of our views for the Irish public: it is to have some impact, if possible, from this House of Parliament on what may happen in Maastricht. When will the proceedings of next Wednesday and Thursday be published which might influence the Taoiseach or others for a meeting which is to happen within three or four days? It is totally unacceptable; it is windowdressing and it is a highly unsatisfactory approach.
Finally, in view of the fact that sanity is beginning to prevail with amendments being introduced to broadcasting legislation by the Minister, will the Leader of the House concede that an open ended debate in relation to the broadcasting issue should take place in this House before the Christmas recess.
I would like to support the call for a debate on the situation in Northern Ireland. I expressed the opinion here before that I do not believe the men of violence on either side could really care less about what we say. But the people of Northern Ireland care. We should reinforce our Government's conviction that talks must and should start no matter when the general election in Great Britain may or may not take place. What we could do is communicate to the people of Northern Ireland, and to the politicians on all sides, that we care about what is happening, we condemn violence and we want to see progress as soon as possible.
I have called virtually every second week for a debate on Northern Ireland. The response we have invariably got on that issue has been that there have been talks for the past 18 months at least and that we are at a delicate stage. There are no Brooke talks at present. There is no reason we cannot have a full scale, comprehensive, wide-ranging debate on Northern Ireland. We must condemn the cold-blooded murder of the young Protestant man in County Armagh last night or this morning. In that context I would like to be associated with the remarks in relation to the other atrocity in south Lebanon by the Israeli-backed militia where a young girl was cold-bloodedly killed. We should also condemn that.
We should have also a debate on the Programme for Social and Economic Progress. When that was negotiated less than 12 months ago with the social partners — the trade unions, the employers and the farmers — we had no say in this House. We were not allowed to debate it. Now that it is about to be renegotiated, which seems to be outside the terms of the agreement, we are still not going to be allowed to have a say in it. We are still not going to be allowed have a debate on it.
We had a debate.
Not before it was negotiated. We were allowed to debate it subsequently and now that it is going to be renegotiated perhaps we will eventually be allowed to debate it subsequently as well. Is that the way we carry on our business? It is an insult to the House.
The real issue I would like to raise is one I have been raising since the beginning of this term, the complete lack of business before us in this House. There is no legislation here. We have two Mickey Mouse pieces of legislation before us. That is the only way I can describe them. It is not legislation that has originated here——
I do not think that kind of remark does any service to the business of the House. All legislation must be and will be treated by this House as important. On the Order of Business we should not continue to make speeches because that is not making a contribution. There is repetition here on many subjects.
I am referring to the corpus of legislation we have got. It is really a corpse. There are two miserable pieces of legislation——
When Members are making contributions I would like them to bear in mind that parliamentary language is important and that we should not make disreputable comment on legislation programmes for the House. I do not think it does the House any service.
I am being descriptive about what we have had before the House. I am asking the Leader of the House to go to the Ministers in the Dáil. I know they are queueing up, jostling each other, to get legislation through the Dáil, but they simply do not have the time to do it. There is absolutely no reason a substantial amount of that legislation could not be initiated in this House. The Leader of the House told me before that he is doing his best. He is checking with the other House, but nothing has been forthcoming. There is really not much purpose coming into this House if we do not have some substantial legislation to discuss. That is the point I want to emphasise.
To get back to European matters, I would like to congratulate Miss Judith Ironside of the Ennis Soroptimists on yesterday achieving the Irish Women of Europe Laureate in relation to caring for the carers. I would also ask the Leader of the House if he would convey to the new Minister for Health, Deputy O'Rourke, the need for realistic funding, not means tested, because we know that the allowance last year came to 10 per cent of the applicants for the carer's allowance.
I would like first to refer to an item on the Supplementary Order Paper, that is, Government's response to the European Court case ruling which I obtained over three years ago. I think I have been fairly restrained on this. It has been many years through the Irish courts and through the European courts system. I understand the Government's difficulties, but we did receive assurances from the Minister for Justice that this matter would be dealt with before Christmas. I would like to ask the Leader if he can give me some update on this, otherwise, with reluctance, I will be forced to——
To which item are you referring, Senator?
On the Supplementary Order Paper up to the summer recess, it was Item No. 17. I do not have the supplementary list that is relevant. I have the one up to the summer.
We are past summer now, we are into winter.
I am aware of that. I was attempting to be helpful.
(Interruptions.)
That is an invitation to catch up with us.
With respect, summer is on the way round again.
It is also, I may say, summer in Australia.
But you are in the Irish Seanad.
I am prepared to be a member of any parliamentary assembly, a Chathaoirligh, as, I understand, you are yourself. You show a marked interest in being a member of all kinds of parliaments. I share your enthusiasm.
I would be delighted if you would be more specific so that you can allow the Leader of the House to reply in a specific way. To which item are you referring?
I cannot give you the precise number but I can read it into the record:
That Seanad Éireann expresses concern at the Government's total lack of action in meeting the requirements of last October's judgment in the European Court of Human Rights concerning discrimination against homosexual citizens of Ireland.
I do not know the number on the Supplementary Order Paper.
It is No. 5.
Thank you, a Chathaoirligh. I would like also to support the call for a debate on Northern Ireland that has been very generally made today. I think I have been consistent in either initiating this or supporting the many other Members who have called for this. It seems absurd that we are told the situation is too delicate, may I say with regard to consistency that the Labour Party made this point from time to time, that the situation was too delicate? I have never believed this was the case. I believe it is important that we should not be mute when people in an area of the country over which we technically claim jurisdiction are being wantonly murdered on both sides of the divide.
Finally, may I support what Senator Lanigan and Senator Ryan said with regard to the situation in southern Lebanon? May I, as a consequence of that, suggest that the appropriate time to ventilate these issues publicly would be in a debate on the Middle East? I would like to ask the Leader of the House if he will allow such a debate. Although as a supporter of Israel, this is an occasion on which I join completely and unreservedly in the condemnation of this appalling crime committed without justification against a family and condemnation of the kidnapping of people. I am asking if we can have a debate soon on the Middle East in which, for example, the absence of a foreign affairs committee and the absence of an Israeli ambassador resident here who could be called to account over this matter, will be discussed.
I would like to ask the Leader of the House for a debate on item No. 49 in view of the increasing violence in west Dublin, in Ronanstown, Neilstown and Killinarden and in view of the statement made by the chairperson of the Oireachtas Committee on Crime, Lawlessness and Vandalism, Deputy Quill, that she was outraged at the appalling violence and thuggery which has been rampant in west Dublin.
Bearing in mind the Cathaoirleach's remarks about the necessity to avoid repetition, I support the pleas for a debate on Northern Ireland not least because Senator McGowan articulated it so sincerely. Though he may not think so, I am always impressed by what he has to say because of his day to day contact with the North.
With regard to a debate on the Maastricht Summit, among the reasons mentioned by Senator Staunton was a desire for more information on what is happening. The most extraordinary thing about the debate on the forthcoming conference is that we know so little about what is meant, for example, by a common defence policy. There is a sinister phrase now being used about the need for an "out of area" dimension to some hypothetical European defence force. We need to be given more information about what people think they mean when they use these phrases.
I regard it as rather unfortunate that the issue of the atrocity in the Middle East has been raised. It would not have been raised, I suggest, but that it was the subject of an article in The Irish Times by a very eloquent journalist, Robert Fisk. It begs the question about other countless and unrecorded atrocities committed all over the Middle East. If this House is to attend to its business properly, I suggest we adhere to the rules already laid down. This is very emotional stuff and partisan attitudes are taken, invariably, in these proposed votes of sympathy. It does not do any service to our troops in the Middle East for us to be so partisan in our expressions of sympathy here. I regret that the matter was raised in the first place.
In response to Senator Neville's call for a debate on item No. 49 in the light of what happened in the suburbs of west Dublin, the suggestion that what is needed is more law and order is rather facile. We need proper resources to create some sort of social fabric in the area, such as community and sporting facilities, etc. A debate on item No. 49 should not be considered as an answer to the problems in west Dublin.
I support the views of Senators Manning and O'Toole in relation to the lack of legislation before the House. Perhaps the Leader could indicate what legislation will come before this House between now and Christmas and what might be initiated here. I disagree with my colleague, Senator Costello, when he indicated that Ministers were queueing up with legislation. They were certainly queueing up to cross the bridge across the way a couple of weeks ago, but that was a different matter.
I call for a debate on local government funding. We are all aware that totally inadequate funds have been provided by the Minister for the Environment to local authorities to carry out their work. I am sure my colleagues from Dún Laoghaire, Senators Keogh and Conroy, will join with me in this regard.
I join with Senator Cosgrave in urging the Leader of the House, as a matter of urgency, to have a debate on the funding of local authority services. As Senator Cosgrave has indicated, many local authorities find it impossible to fund and finance important programmes, such as the roads and housing programmes. Many urban authorities, such as Limerick and Cork, are facing financial bankruptcy. I urge the Leader to have a debate on this very important and vital matter.
A number of Senators, including Senator Manning, asked for a debate on Northern Ireland. I have been consistent in saying that I am hopeful that the talks will resume. If that is not the position I will continue to endeavour to have a debate. I will make renewed efforts over the next few weeks to have a debate, if possible, on the situation in Northern Ireland. I cannot guarantee we will have a debate but I will renew my efforts on this very important and pressing issue.
In regard to the point made by Senator Manning about the banking system, I am pursuing this with a view to having a debate. There are some problems and if we can overcome them we will have a debate.
Senator O'Toole referred to legislation. I and the Chief Whip have been active over the last week pursuing with the new Ministers the question of legislation for this House. We have been in touch with all of them and we hope something will come to us soon.
No answer.
In regard to the Maastricht Summit, I am aware that there is a lack of understanding of the problem generally. The implications for this country are enormous. That being so, as I indicated last week, we will have a debate on the Maastricht Summit and I propose that we have a two day debate next Wednesday and Thursday.
Senator Upton and others referred to youth vandalism and Senators Neville and Hederman referred to it in the context of item No. 49 on the Order Paper. I have no immediate proposals for a debate in that regard but item No. 49 is very suitable for Private Members' time. I urge the Labour Party to consider that.
I noted what Senator Lanigan and others said in regard to the Middle East and south Lebanon in particular. In reply to Senator Norris, I have no proposals at this time for a debate on the Middle East. Senator Howard queried item No. 1 on today's Order Paper. If the debate does not conclude today, we have it ordered for tomorrow also; if it is not completed this evening we should complete it tomorrow.
Senator Brendan Ryan referred to Northern Ireland, the atrocities in the Lebanon and Maastricht. Senator Staunton referred to the broadcasting legislation. I have no plans for a debate on broadcasting at this time. It was suggested last week that a White Paper was being issued on broadcasting. I have checked that out and my information is that that is not the case. In reply to Senator Costello I have no plan for a debate on the renegotiation of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress and I do not regard Bills, such as the Sea Pollution Bill, as unimportant.
I have noted what Senator Jackman said in relation to the carer's allowance. It was a great innovation by the previous Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy Woods and, as he said at the time, hopefully it will continue to improve over the years.
Senator Norris referred to item No. 5 on the supplementary list. I have no information about this at present but I will make inquiries and inform the Senator.
Senators Neville, Hederman and Staunton referred to motion 49. Senator Cosgrave referred to local government funding as did Senator Kennedy. We all share his concern but I have no proposal for a debate in this area at present.
Question put: "That the Order of Business be item No. 1, that business be interrupted from 6 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. and that item No. 6 be taken at 6.30 p.m.".
The Seanad divided: Tá, 30; Níl, 18.
Tá
- Bennett, Olga.
- Bohan, Eddie.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Byrne, Sean.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Conroy, Richard.
- Dardis, John.
- Fallon, Sean.
- Farrell, Willie.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Tom.
- Foley, Denis.
- Haughey, Seán F.
- Honan, Tras.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Keogh, Helen.
- Kiely, Dan.
- Kiely, Rory.
- Lanigan, Michael.
- Lydon, Don.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McGowan, Paddy.
- McKenna, Tony.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- O'Brien, Francis.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- Ormonde, Donal.
- Ryan, Eoin David.
- Wright, G. V.
Níl
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, Joe.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Hourigan, Richard V.
- Howard, Michael.
- Jackman, Mary.
- Kennedy, Patrick.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Neville, Daniel.
- Norris, David.
- Ó Foighil, Pól.
- O'Toole, Joe.
- Ross, Shane P.N.
- Ryan, Brendan.
- Ryan, John.
- Staunton, Myles.
- Upton, Pat.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Wright and Fitzgerald; Níl, Senators O'Toole and Cosgrave.
Question declared carried.
Order of Business agreed to.