As I have been in communication with them, the Whips will understand the position we find ourselves in today. We are taking item 1 — the establishment of an Oireachtas Joint Committee on Employment — until 6 p.m., we will have a sos between 6 p.m. and 6.30 p.m. and from 6.30 p.m. to 8 p.m. we will take item 50 — Private Members' Business, the Fine Gael motion on Justice.
Order of Business.
I am afraid the Order of Business is not agreed. I do not understand and the Leader has not indicated why item No. 1 has suddenly appeared on the Order Paper today without prior notice. If it was going to be taken, that should have been known last week. I think it is a very bad idea that the Order of Business should be changed at short notice. The Order of Business was ordered and agreed last week, so we will be opposing the Order of Business today.
I also want to ask the Leader of the House if he could make time available next week either for statements or for a debate on the present controversy arising over the Mastricht Treaty and the proposed referendum. He said in the past that he would try to facilitate the House with a debate on this subject before the end of the session.
Could I also use this opportunity to say to Dr. Joe Hendron in West Belfast that, in spite of what the chairman of Bord na Gaeilge said, a vote for him is not a vote for British imperialism? As a democrat I think all in this House hope he will be successful tomorrow.
Picking up on the same topic, since 1 January we have buried 39 people in the North of Ireland and this House still has not discussed the North. I ask the Leader to accept the need for an urgent debate on the killing, assassination, murder and bombing there. It is important, particularly in the light of Senator Manning's last comments, that we would all have the opportunity to express our views in this matter. I would ask that a debate on Northern Ireland be taken as a matter of urgency.
Before we conclude this session I feel we are entitled to ask for and receive from the Leader an outline of the programme of legislation which he intends initiating in this House over the next period of weeks. It is not good enough that we should be ordering our business on a week to week basis. Senator Manning raised the question of how quickly we put today's Order of Business together without discussion last week. On the breakdown of the figures, clearly one of the four places reserved for Senators on the Joint Committee would be for an Independent Senator. I would like to make that absolutely clear. We accept that the Leader is under pressure to get the Order of Business correct for today.
On a number of occasions over the last few months the case of Nicky Kelly has been raised by various Members on this and on the Labour benches. It is important that the views of Members individually be conveyed to Government in such a way as would allow them to make the necessary approach to the President for a presidential pardon in this case. This is not a party matter; it is a matter where views are shared on both sides of the House, and I would like to see a decision being arrived at.
It was with some regret I read in yesterday's papers of how slow we are on social issues in European matters — and I am not referring to current debates. We are the only member state not to have signed the convention on discrimination against travellers and gypsies. This is the kind of thing that brings us into disrepute. I would ask the Leader either to have a Minister come to this House to explain the reason for this or to allow a full debate on it.
I join in the request to have a debate on the various matters arising from the Supreme Court decision. When can we expect legislation to be introduced which will put the framework together for the various referenda which we have been promised? In particular, may I express my concern that the Maastricht referendum will not turn into a coded form of support or opposition to abortion for various elements in this country? Can I further hope that the Taoiseach will keep his nerve and resist some of the pressures that we can expect to be exerted on him, and indeed on all politicians, over the coming weeks?
Would it be possible, as a matter of some urgency, to have the Leader reconsider his attitude to the debate on banking? I think it is an urgent necessity that we should have a debate on banking. It seems to me as if the major banks have turned and have begun to savage their staffs after a prolonged period of cleaning out their customers.
May I first comment on what the Leader of Fine Gael has said in relation to the chairman of Bord na Ghaeilge to the extent that the chairman is an arm of the Government——
I have ruled that out of order.
I think it is important to put it on the record that in those circumstances that man is speaking on behalf of those of us who espouse the Irish language, culture and traditions.
(Interruptions.)
It is not relevant to the Order of Business.
This individual could be seen as supporting the ballot box on the one hand and the armalite on the other and it is important for this side of the House that we should be seen to condemn such statements. Would the Leader allow a debate in this House on the common contract as it applies to consultants? I raise this issue in the knowledge that private practice has been processed through a public hospital in Cork city, that payment has been made to consultants operating within that hospital and that those consultants did not see fit to inform the management of that hospital, or indeed the health board. I know that you, Sir, as a member of the health board must be quite concerned that individuals such as this will not have the self-financing element that is so necessary in public hospitals. I ask the Leader to consider this particular request favourably. Could I also, a Chathaoirligh, bring us back to Senator Upton's point on the banks?
The O'Keeffe initiative.
Although we are in the middle of a bank strike, it is opportune and appropriate that we discuss the Irish banking system and how banking groups treated their staff with intimidation leading up to this strike. I wish the present Minister for Labour, Deputy Cowen, every success in his negotiations this afternoon and hope in the interests of our economy that we will reach a quick solution.
Does the Leader have any more information for me on the ruling on homosexuality? It is becoming more urgent because I received information that other parties intend to investigate the possibility of seeking action under Article 8 of the Convention. If that happens I will have to go ahead with reentering the case.
Would the Leader convey, if possible, to their Majesties of Sweden that this House has on three occasions very positively debated the state of one of their great countrymen, Raoul Wallenberg?
I support the call for a debate on the North. Everybody in the House responded positively to what Senator O'Keeffe said about the intervention of Mr. Mac Aonghusa who, writing as Gulliver in one of the Sunday newspapers, engaged in felon setting when he said the peace train was financed by the British Army. That is regrettable and it is also regrettable that in the week after Glór na Gael received its funding, he managed to smear Irish language enthusiasts in the North as IRA fellow travellers.
That is not appropriate to the Order of Business. The Senator is out of order.
In that case, I will immediately desist. I would like to ask the Leader if he would consider providing time for a debate on the subject of AIDS. He will recall that the first Oireachtas debate on this subject was held in this House. This is a growing problem and one on which this House could make an important contribution.
Ba mhaith liom a fhiafraí den Cheannaire cén uair a bhfuil sé i gceist aige díospóireacht a bheith againn faoi chursaí iarthar na hÉireann. Tá an t-iarratas sin istigh ie tamall agus ní chiúdóidh an plé a dhéanfar ar thuairisc Chulliton an cheist leathan seo. Mura ndéantar rud éigin dearfach faoi, níl i ndán do mhuintir an iarthair ach an bád bán.
I support Senator Upton's and Senator O'Keeffe's request for a debate on the banks. The Leader may or may not indicate to us this afternoon when he proposes to allow this debate to take place. In situations such as this the rules of the House can prove frustrating even though certain improvements are on their way. Would the Leader of the House establish information on the current practice of bank managers and officials collecting lodgements from business premises and transporting them to the banks? There is serious doubt as to security and cover for the transportation of these funds.
That matter is not relevant.
As I have already referred to the frustration experienced in relation to urgent matters which should be attended to here, perhaps the Leader would establish the true situation on that matter by tomorrow.
I support those who called for a debate on the banks. As a small business person I have suffered for many years because of the various changes that have taken place in bank policy. As a former member of the IBOA, I do not think we should engage in bank bashing or simplistic arguments about who is right or wrong. The IBOA are just as wrong in this dispute as the banks.
That is disgraceful — a totally subjective view.
It is not disgraceful at all. Senator O'Toole can jump on his Union bandwagon if he wishes to.
(Interruptions.)
There is no reference to the banks dispute on the Order of Business for today.
I was delighted to see a report yesterday that the economy is improving, that retail sales in January were up by 5.6 per cent on the same period last year and that in December they were up by .4 per cent on the previous December. That is an indication that the economy is on the move and VAT returns bear that out over the past months. However, that report indicated that currently the motor trade is suffering loss of business; although retail sales are up there was a 23 per cent drop in motor vehicle sales in January which has major implications for employment and VAT.
Is this a bandwagon?
A question, please, Senator Lanigan.
I ask the Leader for an urgent debate on what has been happening in the motor trade over the past number of years to see if anything can be done by Government to alleviate the problems all of us are being confronted with. Benefit in kind is an inhibiting factor and motor company representatives are being disadvantaged by it.
We will have the Finance Bill fairly soon and as Senator Lanigan is aware, this matter will be appropriate then.
I ask the House to send a message of congratulations to Yasser Arafat, the President of the Palestinians on surviving a horrific crash. Coming up to Easter we wish him and the people involved in negotiations over the next few days success in resolving the horrific problems of that area where the three major religions of the world began. Christians, Jews and Muslims in that area need peace——
This is not appropriate.
I support the call for a debate on the Maastricht Treaty. It is clear that there is public misunderstanding about what Maastricht means and it is equally clear from the words of a spokesman for a certain organisation that calls itself pro-life — we are all pro-life — that it intends to use the Maastricht referendum as a vote on abortion. Unless we clear the air here and in the other House, one cannot blame the people for being misinformed about the situation.
Second, I would like to raise an issue which deserves urgent debate. There is a reported increase in violent sexual crimes against women and children. It is becoming appallingly evident now that this is happening all too often. We should discuss the matter and let the people know we are very concerned about what is happening.
I know talk about the banks is irrelevant but since my colleagues have being doing it let me comment briefly. Senator Lanigan is perfectly entitled to express whatever opinion he wants about the IBOA and I dissociate myself from any suggestions that that was disgraceful. Ten years ago I was in favour of nationalising the banks as I still am against all received wisdom. It was then regarded as an eccentric opinion and I am now more than ever convinced that I was right.
Maidir leis an gcaint amaideach a dhein Ceannaire Bhord na Gaeilge i dtaobh polaitíocht iarthar Bhéal Feirste, ní raibh sé ag labhairt thar ceann formhór Gaeilgeoirí na hÉireann.
With respect to Item No. 45 on the Order Paper which relates to the Nicky Kelly issue, can I ask the Leader to convey to the Government the concern of a number of Senators at the suggestion which seems to have some basis that strong vested interests in Government Departments and elsewhere are delaying justice for Nicky Kelly. That is a matter of great public concern. I fail to understand the contrary attitude of Fine Gael to the proposed Joint Committee on Employment. As that is the gravest crisis facing us——
This is not appropriate to the Order of Business. You can make reference to that——
I am referring to what Senator Manning said about the Order of Business — the fact that it is the first item ordered. Surely nothing could be more relevant than that.
My objection to the Order of Business was on the lack of consultation not substance.
It is not usual to interrupt people like that. I want to point out in the general context that Fine Gael contrariness on this issue is inexplicable. While I do not like seeing the Order of Business changed, and over the years I have strongly objected to this, the gravest national issue should take priority over all other considerations. I am totally in favour of making this matter number one on the Order of Business.
I support the call for a debate on the banking dispute; we should ask, through the Leader of the House, that the Minister for Labour intervene immediately. I understand he is meeting congress today but he should meet both parties. We should congratulate the IBOA on the initiative they took over the weekend to try to resolve the situation.
Aontaím leis na Seanadóirí a dúirt go raibh díomá orthu faoin méid a scríobh Cathaoirleach Bhord na Gaeilge agus Chonradh na Gaeilge i dtaobh an oll-toghcháin in iarthar Bhéal Feirste. Ní dheineann sé aon mhaitheas do chúrsaí na Gaeilge ná do chúrsaí na hÉireann a bheith ag iarraidh ar mhuintir Bhéal Feirste cabhair a thabhairt do Sinn Féin. Ráiteas uafásach ab ea é agus ní aontaím len a raibh ann.
I ask the Leader of the House to convey to the Minister for Industry and Commerce our concern about the imminent closure of the Irish Productivity Centre. I appreciate that the Cathaoirleach had to rule the way he did, but this unique experiment in co-operation between workers, employers and Government should not go out of existence because the Government have savagely reduced funding. This centre should not be closed without a proper debate because this matter is of great concern to many of us.
I ask the Leader of the Fine Gael Party to understand why we are here today with a change on the Order of Business which many Senators have spoken on and which constitutes the main issue of the moment. This motion was dealt with in the Dáil yesterday, and the Government hope it will be passed here today so that it may be dealt with in the Dáil tomorrow. I am not suggesting that an Oireachtas Joint Committee on Employment is going to solve the unemployment problem but at least it is an effort to bring together all those with ideas that might help alleviate unemployment. I ask him to appreciate the position I found myself in yesterday given this development; it is the first time this has happened. Since my appointment I have endeavoured to ensure that business is well known not just for the week in hand but for weeks ahead. It is hoped that the motion will be passed here today by 6 p.m., and passed in the Dáil tomorrow as an order so that this committee can be established during the Easter recess and will be up and running afterwards.
I understand that the White Paper on Maastricht will be with us within the next couple of weeks. I understand what Senator Raftery said. It is vitally important that Members of both Houses ensure that the public understand the implications of Maastricht. I heard an interview on it at lunchtime today. Each of us has a duty to inform the public of the importance of passing the Maastricht Protocol and I hope this House will play its part.
In response to calls for a debate on Maastricht I can arrange that, whether the topic is the White Paper, the wording of referenda or otherwise; all will be accommodated. Between now and soon after Easter we can do that; we are sitting next week. Somebody suggested that the Taoiseach is holding his nerve. I have no doubt after listening to the Taoiseach today that he has a clear idea how this issue should be handled in the interests of the country.
I find it regrettable that statements were made relating to an election in west Belfast. I have the height of respect for Mr. Joe Hendron and I will say no more than that.
Senator O'Toole mentioned one problem which is not relevant to the Order of Business but which all of us deal with daily; that is, the travellers' problem. I would welcome a debate in this House on travellers' because no matter who we represent we all deal with travellers' problems. It is a national problem and maybe this House should afford itself the opportunity to discuss that issue. I note a report in the newspaper related to Senator O'Tooles organisation, INTO, that is relevant to the problem.
I restrained myself from mentioning that.
Without education the problem will never be solved; that is a personal belief. I would like an opportunity to expand on that.
An anti-discrimination Bill.
This House has suggested over the last couple of months that we should debate the banking system. I hope that will happen but I would prefer it to happen after labour relations problems have been resolved. I take on board several Senators' good wishes to the Minister for Labour, Deputy Cowen, in his deliberations with the various outside bodies that will, I hope, bring the two bodies involved in the banks dispute together. It is a dispute this country cannot afford.
I wrote to the Minister for Justice last week in relation to Senator Norris' question about the EC ruling on the decriminalising of homosexuality and as soon as I have a reply I will forward it to him. Senator Norris also asked for a debate on AIDS. The Minister for Health has made several statements and holds fairly strong views on the matter. This House would be an ideal place to have that debate.
On the Nicky Kelly case, I mentioned last week that the Attorney General has not yet forwarded his report to Government. That is the latest position.
Order of Business agreed to.