It is proposed to take item No. 1 until 4 o'clock, with a sos between 1 p.m. and 2 p.m.
Order of Business.
On the Order of Business, it would be inappropriate pending the full judgment being published on the case to have a discussion but this controversy has raised a number of issues which may or may not be dealt with in the judgment. Therefore, I ask the Leader to make time available next week, perhaps on the same basis as last week, to have the judgment discussed when we have had time to reflect on it.
To reiterate the point Senator Manning made, it is imperative that we have a discussion on that issue. I also want to repeat what I said yesterday about the need to have some time during the week to deal with a number of outstanding issues, some of which were referred to yesterday and again this morning.
Following the meeting yesterday between the British Prime Minister and the Taoiseach the time is right for a full discussion on developments in Northern Ireland. There should be no difficulty about having an agreed motion to note the developments which are taking place. Words are valuable and we should consider a discussion on Northern Ireland.
I support the idea that we should have a discussion or debate on the judgment but, obviously, we will have to wait for the details of that judgment. However, I hope this judgment will not become an issue in the Maastricht referendum.
We will not have a discussion on that matter at this time and, furthermore, in my opinion, the matter is still sub judice.
I was very concerned this morning to hear German MEPs demanding that Ireland should be excluded from the European Community arising from what happened over the last few days.
On another point, when can we expect the debate on the Milk (Regulation of Supply) (No. 2), Bill, 1991 to be resumed?
Will the Leader of the House draw the attention of the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications to an article in today's Irish Independent in relation to the Shannon stopover. I refute the expressions in that article. Shannon is a true example of how regionalisation should work. I take great exception to anyone who casts aspersions on the status of Shannon. Will the Leader of the House convey to the Minister the strong reservations and the attitude of this House to this matter?
The Senator has made his point and I am sure the Leader will take it on board.
The Minister should deal with this issue and not have it pushed around.
In fairness, the Senator got a good innings and I ask him to conclude.
There has been strong lobbying for and a vested interest in all this. In fairness, to the regions and the rural areas we have to——
Senator Norris, please.
I support Senator Manning's call for a debate when the ruling has been published. I welcome the speed with which the Supreme Court dealt with this issue; it was very welcome and showed the organs of our State to be working efficiently. Could I, very respectfully, disagree with you, Sir, in your interpretation that this matter is sub judice? I do not see how it can be since the judgment has been handed down. There are still worrying issues in regard to this matter. Bishop Smith of Meath indicated on the radio this morning that he felt it still could be possible that a sick wife could be injuncted by a husband. If this is true, it is an extremely worrying development. I would welcome the opportunity to have a full debate on the issue at the appropriate time.
In my opinion, until the Supreme Court gives its considered opinion, the matters relating to the appeal are still regarded as being in the hands of the court and are, therefore, sub judice. That is a traditional ruling of both Houses of the Oireachtas.
Mr. Farrell
In view of the fact that an international star asked the children of Ireland to break the rules of their schools and go out marching, would the schools be responsible if the children were injured in an accident?
This has nothing to do with the Order of Business.
Mr. Farrell
The matter would be raised in this House if some of those students were injured in a crash or an accident. Would it be the school authorities or the Government who would be liable?
That has nothing to do with the Order of Business.
I welcome the ruling of the Supreme Court and I support Senator Manning's call for a full debate on what will be very complex matters. We should have the debate as soon as the ruling is handed down.
I welcome the decision of the Supreme Court. I would also welcome the opportunity for statements or a debate at the earliest opportunity because, in a sense, responsibility rests with this House and the other House in relation to matters of legislation in this area.
May I ask the Leader of the House if it is intended that we will have a positive paper setting out the Government's case in relation to the Maastricht Treaty. If the Government intend to have a referendum in June it is high time we had such a paper so that we can have a full debate. The Protocol seems to have been surreptitiously added to the Treaty and we should look into its implications.
Will the Leader of the House say if he has any information in relation to the response of the Attorney General who was asked four months ago to give his opinion on whether the Nicky Kelly case would be referred to the President for a presidential pardon? He has been rather tardy in that matter and now I see that a member of Fianna Fáil from Limerick——
We will not have a speech now. The Senator has made his point to the Leader and I am sure he will respond.
——has also sought a pardon. Has the Leader any information on that matter?
I would like the House to express its satisfaction at the meeting between the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister. I ask the Leader of the House to arrange a debate in this House as soon as possible on the North. The Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister have set the tone and it has given satisfaction to those of us who have been concerned about this matter for a very long time. I hope we can now move forward on the basis of the standards set at those discussions.
In relation to some of the changes that have taken place regarding energy and the production of electricity in this country, will the Leader of the House allow a debate on energy policy? I mention this on the basis that it appears from recent statements that one of our largest semi-State companies are abandoning large tracts of peat bogs. This would be a major change and obviously if it were to happen our whole energy policy should come up for debate as well as the whole area of private involvement in energy and electricity production. This is an issue that will come up for debate in the future and this House would be an appropriate forum for us to have an advance debate. I am simply asking that as soon as the Leader has discussed the matter, possibly with the Department or the Government, he will give the opportunity to this House to discuss it. I certainly have views in this regard and I am sure other Members of this House also have views.
Like some of my colleagues, I ask the Leader for a debate, or at least statements, when the final result of yesterday's court findings are in place. I am not quoted anywhere as welcoming yesterday's judgment but I think the result was excellent.
Remarks do not worry me too much any more, but lest this House might think I do not approve, the new Leader of the House has my total approval. I congratulate Senator Wright, Senator Ryan and the survivor behind me, Senator Fitzgerald; their appointments also have my full approval.
I hope the controversy over the abortion amendment will be kept completely separate from the discussions on the Maastricht Treaty which is due to come up shortly. When will it be possible to have a debate on the industrial policy review group report? We should be conscious of our priorities and, while we can all be carried away by demonstrations, it is important that we tackle the question of unemployment.
Will the Leader of the House comment on the reason the Taoiseach described our nearest neighbour as "the mainland"? Are we going back into the Commonwealth or——
Hear, hear.
——will there be any change in policy foreshadowed by that remark?
Never.
In response to the comments made on yesterday's judgment, obviously like everybody else, I am very pleased with the speed at which the decision was made and I welcome it. With regard to a debate on that matter, it is something on which we might have a discussion. The Taoiseach complimented the way the debate took place in this House last week and, hopefully that augurs well for many debates we hope to have in the future.
With regard to the points raised by Senator O'Toole, without going into the details of the reforms discussed by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, I would be very keen that we would be in a position on a regular basis to have discussion on topical issues and I hope that will be one of the reforms implemented.
In relation to a debate on Northern Ireland, we will discuss that with the Taoiseach when he returns. I asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food yesterday to give me a date as to when we could discuss the Milk (Regulation of Supply) (No. 2) Bill, 1991.
On Maastricht, a White Paper is being prepared and will be ready soon. We will then have an opportunity to discuss that issue. A debate on energy is a matter for the Whips. I gave a commitment yesterday that we would put together the wording of a motion which would be relevant to job creation and industrial policy. Again, that is a matter for the Whips.
Order of Business agreed to.