It is proposed to take Item No. 1, which deals with the Maastricht Summit. In that regard it is proposed that we have 20 minutes for the opening speaker of each group and 15 minutes per speaker thereafter. That debate will continue until 6 p.m. There will be a sos between 6 p.m. and 6.30 p.m. and we will then resume the second hour and a half of the Fine Gael motion on the Suicide Bill, 1991, until 8 p.m.
Order of Business.
Would the Leader give the House a clear indication of the programme of work for the next two weeks and say whether we are likely to be sitting on the Friday of the second week? I am particularly concerned about the proposed B & I Bill and the Electoral Bills, because we will not accept any guillotine or rushing through the House of very important legislation. I would like, through you, a Chathaoirligh, to give notice to the Leader that we are prepared to sit for extra days or for longer hours as he feels necessary to give proper consideration to the important legislation I have named.
First of all, I welcome the Order of Business today, and belated though it is, the debate on Masstricht. It is important that we have arranged that.
Could I ask the question I have been asking for the past three or four weeks and which I now understand the Leader can at last answer: could he please outline the next piece of legislation which will be initiated in this House? Do I take it from the fact that certain Bills were withdrawn from the other House this morning that we can now look forward to debating those, and is this expected to take place in the next couple of weeks? It is important that we have some clear idea of the business over the next few weeks so that members can prepare for the discussion on those measures.
Could I ask the Leader of the House, first, to make time available for a debate on science and technology, given the fact that wholesale redundancies are now threatened in Teagasc and that the closure of a number of Teagasc centres is now being very clearly signalled? Second, are there any proposals imminent in relation to the banning of strychnine, given that this matter was debated in this House some time ago arising from a Fianna Fáil proposal?
First, I would ask the Leader of the House when we will have the Electoral Bill, 1991, introduced here; and, secondly, in view of the problems local authorities have with the level of rate support grant which has been approved by the Minister for the Environment, if the Leader of the House would allow a special debate in the Seanad on this very important matter. We have at least one local authority faced with being abolished and for those of us who are elected through the county council system that would create major difficulties. I would ask the Leader of the House therefore if he would allow a debate on that. I would also support Senator Upton in his call for a debate on the closure by Teagasc of a number of centres including the only sheep research centre in Ireland, namely, Belclare, and of course also the closure of Grange.
Could the Leader of the House arrange to have time made available for a discussion on the whole area of broadcasting? In view of the collapse of the TV 3 franchise and the Century independent radio station, a full and very wide-ranging discussion is necessary in all of our interests. I think the Members on all sides of the House would have many views to express which would be helpful in the debate. The Seanad has the possibility of playing a role in helping to develop a clear policy in this area, which, unfortunately, heretofore has not been the case. In deference to the possibility of our getting it wrong again, the opportunity now is there to put it right and the Seanad can play a leading role in that.
I would also support Senator Naughten's call for a debate on the rate support grant and the whole question of local government funding, which is being thrown into disarray because of the lack of funds.
In view of the fact that quite a lot of the time of the House is now being devoted to statements on the reform of the Seanad and that there would appear to be at least a certain number of items on which there is agreement — for example, the idea that MEPs should come here and address the House and that perhaps one week would be devoted to a motion in Private Members' Time etc — is there a possibility that we could have these reform measures introduced, and how could we give effect to them without consideration by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. There may be more contentious issues which would have to be thrashed out, but if there is agreement in the House about some of these measures would it not be possible for them to be dealt with here in the immediate future?
I would like to ask the Leader of the House when the Milk Supply Bill will come before this House? I gather it is being sent to this House before it goes to the Dáil. Secondly, I would like to support the calls for a discussion on Teagasc. At a time when almost every other country in the Community is increasing their research and development spending in agriculture and the food industry, we seem to be hell bent on destroying it. Thirdly, I would agree with Senator Upton that the Government should do something about banning the use of strychnine. Both the Taoiseach and myself have a personal interest in this. We have got a few new sea eagles in Fota and I gather he has a few new ones in Inishvickillane. It would be a great pity indeed if in trying to reintroduce the sea eagle our combined efforts were destroyed by the use of strychnine by some farmers to poison predators.
Can the Leader of the House give us an idea of the programme for the coming term. I have seen that Bills have been withdrawn from the other House and I presume some of them will be introduced here. We need to know in advance what the programme for the coming term will be so that we have something substantial to deal with. There are a couple of pressing issues which we certainly should discuss. The most urgent and the one which effects us all clearly is the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. This is a deal that was done between the Government and the social partners — the farmers, the employers and the trade unions. If that is going to be changed it is important that this House would have the opportunity of having its views expressed. All that is going on so far is the old traditional megaphone negotiations. It is extremely important that even at this stage we are allowed the opportunity of putting our views on the record and that the programme is not renegotiated without our being able to say a word about it. I would also support the call for a debate on Teagasc.
Both myself and Senator Norris last week asked for a debate on the Middle East. In the context of the opening of negotiations in the United States without the presence of one of the major parties, given that the Israelis have apparently decided that they want to have the discussions on the anniversary of the Intifada, which is classical insensitivity, there is a need for those of us who support the resolution of the conflict in the Middle East by peaceful means to do what we can by open debate to encourage progress on that issue.
In that context, a Chathaoirligh, you allowed us some latitude in discussing the murder of a nine-year-old girl last week. The newspaper article to which we referred said that nobody would condemn it. Well, we did in this House condemn it and I regret that nobody saw fit to report the fact that we condemned it, or if it was reported, I missed it.
On a slightly less solemn note, I am fascinated by the Members of this House who are forever talking about broadcasting policy. It is a fascinating subject, but it appears to me that there is a logic among certain of my colleagues on this issue which suggests that the free market is a great idea until it does not work and then all of a sudden you must have large-scale State intervention. Century failed because it was a hopeless organisation and because it was commercially a disaster. I wish the Leader would let us have a debate and perhaps some of the Members who want a debate could then explain to me in that context why it is that they only like the market when it helps their friends and when it does not help their friends they do not like it anymore?
I am concerned about the point Senator Raftery made on the Milk (Regulation of Supply) Bill, 1991. I believe it is ordered for the other House but it has not been debated in the other House. It must be treated as a matter of urgency because it has been proven that the present regulations are not in accordance with EC regulations. I would like the Leader to urge that the debate on that Bill in the other House be expedited in order to ensure that it would come here in the very near future.
I would first of all like to ask the Leader what Bills are being introduced in this House before Christmas. Secondly, I would like to ask him for a debate on Item No. 56 — the recent report on the terms of reference and resources of the Joint Committee on State-sponsored Bodies. The Leader should seriously consider this because the Committee are under-resourced and have not adequate powers to do their work. With the spate of scandals and difficulties, especially in the former Sugar Company, now Greencore, and in Telecom, the Seanad could provide a platform for the discussion of their terms of reference to ensure that this Committee does the work the Dáil and Seanad outlined for them.
I would like to refer once more to Item No. 5 on the Supplementary Order paper. It is the question of the European Court judgement. I raised this last week and the Leader said he would seek information for me. I do not wish to press this in an unpleasant or awkward way but it is an inmportant issue and one that should be treated rationally. I would just point out that I understand the introduction of the Government's reforming legislation formed part of the agreed Programme for Government and I would like some information. If the Leader does not happen to have it today, perhaps he will get it for me as soon as possible. I would like to put down a motion that in the new year I will be taking a far more vigorous stance on this if we do not have some information.
I would like to refer to what my colleague, Senator Hederman, said about the debate on the reform of the Seanad. I share her concern that that important debate may pass without very much constructive fallout from it. Might I suggest — it is very likely that this will happen anyway, that the record of that debate should be examined by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges to extract what they consider the most useful proposals, because I think from all sides of the House some very useful proposals did come. I see that the Leader and the Chief Whip have agreed that that is a useful proposal.
I would like also to support what my colleague, Senator Brendan Ryan, said about a debate on the Middle East. We may have slightly different viewpoints on it, but if we wish to be constructive and helpful we should try to understand each other's viewpoint. I would very much welcome an opportunity to condemn certain aspects of Israeli policy, although I am a supporter of that country, I would be very happy to do. Reference was made to the absence of one negotiating side, which I certainly regret and deplore. But it is paralleled by the absence of an Israeli Ambassador in this capital city as a result of Irish Government intransigence. Is the Leader prepared to give us a debate on the Middle East, which would be welcomed on all sides of the House?
Finally, may I ask a technical question of the Leader? I understand from media reports that there will be some alteration in the legal position with regard to the sale of solvents to persons under the age of 18. I think this is a most important step and I am glad the Minister has announced it. From what was said I was not sure whether the legislation we passed recently enabled this to be done without consultation with the Oireachtas, or whether the regulations involved will be placed before the Oireachtas. I welcome the speedy introduction of these because, like most other Members of the Oireachtas, I was lobbied passionately by a group of women outside the gates who were the mothers against solvent abuse.
(Interruptions.)
Order, please. Senator Norris is entitled to speak strongly about this matter.
I have no objection to a degree of levity because I know that Members of the House are aware of this very serious problem which the existing legislation does not address. Some of the mothers of these children have gone to a lot of trouble to list the practical problems they encountered daily in this city and the placing of these regulations before the Oireachtas is appropriate.
Irrespective of the fact that I may on this occasion make the cat yawn, could I again raise the issue of the banking system in Ireland? It was suggested last week that I had lost interest in this and I want to confirm that I have not. Secondly, in view of the fact that the Ombudsman has issued a report on credit institutions — an extremely important document that is critical of the banking system — and that in the UK a reputable newspaper has conducted a campaign vis-à-vis the banking institutions, perhaps we may be afforded another opportunity to discuss this issue under the Ombudsman's report. I would like if the Leader could take that suggestion on board.
I understand that, to get over the logjam, the Government are on the point of introducing some legislation in this House first rather than in the Dáil. I welcome that. In that context, is the Leader of the House aware that there is pending legislation in the planning area which, I understand, is being considered by Government.
A Senator
Family planning?
No, planning in a general sense. Executives involved in planning issues around the country are extremely keen that that legislation should be enacted, which would mean the speeding up of the processes and the time span in which An Bord Pleanála would have to reach conclusions on issues which effect the economy. Would the Leader of the House speak to members of the Government to see if this House could deal with that legislation first so as to expedite its enactment?
Secondly, just two or three very brief points. I was one of the first to raise in this House the demand for a debate on broadcasting. We have had the debacle in the private sector. We have had the debacle in the Minister's legislation, which was introduced too precipitately in the past. It is a very topical issue which, I feel, should be debated in the short term in this House and I reiterate my request to the Leader of the House that he arrange such a debate. I also want to support those who have spoken in relation to the Teagasc issue. I would ask the Leader of the House to take up this issue. It seems to me we have a hugely important agricultural sector, where research is vital, and for the life of me in this time in Irish agriculture, where our weaknesses are in research and in marketing, how the blazes can we cut off our nose to spite our face? In the west we saw Glenamoy closing, we saw Creagh closing and we were told it would be the same in Belclare. I am putting it to the Leader of the House that the story now is that Belclare, Kinsealy and Grange are going to be closed. I think it is intolerable and detrimental to the country and I would ask the Leader to take up that issue.
I support my colleague, Senator O'Keeffe, in relation to his suggestion to the Leader that we could use the opportunity of the report of the Ombudsman to debate the position of the financial institutions in this country. I do so because of the concern and anxiety that have been expressed here over a period of a number of weeks in relation to the activities of the banking institutions. Another matter of great concern that has been conveyed to me is the fact that third level students who are receiving grants have absolutely no say whatever in regard to the banks through which their grants should come. I think it is deplorable and another example of the heavy handed attitude of the banks that they can direct students as to what banks they should use. I think all third level students should be free to choose rather than be pressurised into using particular banks. On that basis I want to strongly support my colleague.
I am responding to and agreeing with Senator Carmencita Hederman that something specific must be done in relation to Seanad reform. I would hope that the nod of agreement from Senator G.V. Wright is positive and a signal that Seanad voting rights will be extended to the University of Limerick, Dublin City University and the other appropriate third level institutions. I am asking the Leader of the House that something specific be done in relation to the extension of those voting rights, particularly because of the enhanced status of the regional technical colleges as a result of the Colleges Bill. We very definitely want something to happen there. I do not want to have to be standing up regularly making what is a very simple request.
One of the Senators gave me a little book on the proverbs and sayings of Ireland. It is probably appropriate to what I am saying because the first one that came to my notice was "Forgive a horse that cocks his ears", so I beg the forgiveness of the House. Even though the House cannot propose votes of sympathy in specific cases, I think the House should acknowledge the death of Dr. Pat O'Callaghan who for many years has been the epitome of the last of the Irish greats, who won two Olympic medals, who was a doctor of superb quality and an athlete of superb quality. He died this week and I think this House should at least acknowledge the fact that he lived among us. He was a giant among men and, unfortunately, he has gone.
On the Order of Business, I refer to Senator Dan Neville's proposal that we debate the report of the Joint Committee on State-sponsored Bodies on the need for bringing that body into the modern age so that it can do the job the Irish people would want it to do, particularly at a time when so many problems have arisen in State-sponsored bodies. I ask for a very early debate on that report. Unfortunately, reports have come from joint committees in the past; this House has debated them on occasion, but we have not debated them all. This is a report we should debate at length because it has connotations which go beyond the actual committee itself.
Senator Brendan Ryan and Senator David Norris mentioned the need for a debate on the Middle East. We acknowledge the leeway you gave us last week, Sir, when we were discussing a particular desperate incident. I would like the House to acknowledge the fact that Dr. Youssef Allan, the new PLO representative to Ireland, is in the House, and he is very welcome.
On the question of solvents, I think there is a need to discuss the Bill as soon as possible. I sell solvents, but we have had to take various solvents off our shelves because of the fact that children were coming in and stealing them. Solvents such as superglue and so on are not available on the shelves of most shops at present. There are problems associated with them. I think therefore that an early reading of that Bill in this House is very necessary.
I would like to support Senator O'Keeffe, who has asked the Leader of the House for a debate on money lending and banks generally. It would be a very good thing if we had that debate. Then we could point out to the banks how grateful they should be to all of us when we bailed them out when they got in over their heads in America. My experience of bankers has always been that they talk a great deal, but I would like them to know that we have much to say too. I would welcome that debate as soon as the Leader of the House can fit it in.
Senator Doyle asked what legislation we have for the time up to Christmas and suggested that we should not have guillotines. I am not in favour of guillotines. We always try to order our business by having perhaps an allocation of time. Unfortunately, with all Governments, coming up to Christmas or the summer recess there has been a tendency to push legislation through too quickly. I will endeavour not to do that and, if need be, we will sit nights, we will sit early and we will sit into Christmas week if Senators wish to.
Idle threats.
It is no idle threat. It is my own view. Having spoken to many of the Senators, my view is that we should try to conclude our business on Friday, 20 December. That will be the intention, but we will endeavour to give as much time as possible to all the legislation that comes to us and give it sufficient debate.
Senator Doyle and others inquired what we are likely to have for the remain ing period up to Christmas. I know for certain that from the Dáil we will have the Criminal Damage Bill and the B & I Bill. That latter Bill will be in the Dáil on 10 December and in view of the urgency of the sale being completed by 31 December 1991, we will have to arrange to have the Bill considered and passed in this House before the Christmas recess. I indicated that last week also.
The Milk (Regulation of Supply) Bill, 1991 will be initiated in this House next week. The Electoral Bill will also be initiated here. I have at all times, indicated both my own interest and that of the Chief Whip in getting Bills initiated in this House. We are doing nicely and we will be proved correct as time goes on.
Senator Upton asked for a debate on Teagasc as did others but I have no proposal for that at this time. Senator Naughten asked about the Electoral Bill. I am not certain if it will be with us before Christmas but it will be published very soon. If we are asked to take it obviously we will do so, but it may well be after the Christmas recess. He asked about the rate support grant. I have no plans for a debate on that at this point. Senator Cullen asked for a debate on broadcasting and also on the rate support grant. I have no proposal for a debate on broadcasting. A Bill will be published soon, I understand, and we will have a discussion on it at that stage.
In regard to Senator Hederman's comments about how we give effect to the debate on reform of the Seanad. Senator Norris said it exactly as it was planned. It has been agreed for quite some time that we would go through the various contributions. The Committee on Procedure and privileges would examine them and prepare a list of the important matters we may take on board. We can see from that what we can do to improve the running of the House.
Senators Raftery and Staunton raised the question of strychnine as did others — I give credit to this side of the House who raised that matter first. My understanding is that the Minister for Justice has been in touch with the Garda in this connection, and I understand further that the five importers who import strychnine into this country have been told not to do so in the future.
As regards the question raised by Senator Costello, I am not fully aware what business we will have after Christmas but I can say that the Roads Bill, the Dublin Institute of Technology Bill and the Regional Technical College Bill are published and have been debated in the Dáil. Presumably we will have them as soon as possible after Christmas. He also asked about the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. I have no proposal for a debate on that matter, nor for a debate on the Middle East, as requested by Senator Ryan. Senator Kiely asked about a debate on the Milk (Regulation of Supply) Bill. That will be taken next week.
The question of State-Sponsored Bodies was referred to by Senators Lanigan and Neville. Perhaps we could consider having a debate on that after Christmas. Senator Norris and other Members mentioned the sale of solvents. This matter was referred to recently in a Bill in this House and I note that the Minister for Health referred to it during the week. I will make further inquiries and see what is happening.
The question of bank charges and the banking system was raised by Senators O'Keeffe, McKenna and Hanafin who suggested that the way forward might be by way of a debate on the report of the Ombudsman which deals with credit institutions including the ACC, banks and so on. We will consider it from that point of view. The planning Bill, mentioned by Senator Staunton, is due for publication soon, I understand. This legislation — the Local Government (Planning and Development) Appeals Bill — is aimed at modifying and speeding up the planning appeal procedure, and we will ask, as we always do, to have it initiated in this House.
Senator Jackman referred to the role of the Seanad, and I am sure the extension of the franchise will be taken up when the Committee on Procedure and Privileges debate it. I support the call for a vote of sympathy to the family of the late Dr. Pat O'Callaghan, who was a famed athlete.
The European Court judgment?
I will make inquiries about that.
Order of Business agreed to.