Today's business will be item No. 1 until 4 p.m. with 40 minutes for the spokespersons and 30 minutes for each Senator thereafter. Item No. 2 will be discussed from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m., all Stages to conclude not later than 6 p.m. with a sos between 1 p.m. and 2 p.m.
Order of Business.
On the Order of Business, could the Leader confirm that the changes in procedures which were agreed by all parties in the Committee on Procedure and Privileges will be announced and published before the end of this session?
Would the Leader be prepared, at an early date, to allow a debate on the various aspects of the referenda which are now being discussed all over the place? I am particularly concerned that the issues involved should be clarified and that the public should understand what is involved. In particular, I am worried that many people may begin to adopt the attitude of we are against it, whatever it happens to be.
May I also ask the Leader of the House if he can give us some information on the latest position regarding the restructuring of procedures in the Seanad and on Seanad reform?
I, too, would like to call for an early debate on the Maastricht referendum. As I see it emerging, it is going to be very confusing for the people and we need to clarify the issues.
May I raise another matter with the Leader of the House? Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution will probably cost the taxpayer £160 million this year. A civil servant has now said that beef sourced in Northern Ireland was eligible for export credit guarantees and as a consequence, the export credit guarantees were withdrawn from Mr. Goodman by the Minster, Deputy O'Malley, and as a consequence of that, the State is being sued for £160 million by Mr. Goodman. Could the Leader make the concerns of this House and of the taxpayers known to the Minister? It would be extremely serious if we were landed with a bill for £160 million as a result of some kind of fumbling in the Civil Service.
I welcome the fact that item No. 1 is being taken today — the Culliton report. Can the Leader indicate whether it is intended to continue this debate next week or when is it intended to continue?
I want to raise on the Order of Business the totality of the relationship between consultants and health boards and the management of hospitals in particular. I would like to make the House aware that for two years a private clinic, had trials carried out in the laboratory in the regional hospital. This clinic is claiming it paid an all-in fee to consultants who were processing. The management of the hospital were not aware that this work was being carried out over a two year period. The consequence now is that——
You are making a speech, Senator O'Keeffe. A question, please.
An all in service fee was paid to consultants but no money accrued to the hospital or to the health board. In the circumstances, would the Leader allow time for a debate on the common contract with consultants? This issue is of major importance and should be addressed in this House.
Before I reply to some of the issues raised, may I mention that next week we will sit on Tuesday from 2.30 p.m. to 8 p.m. and that will include the Private Members' Fine Gael motion; on Wednesday the House will sit from 10.30 a.m. to 4 p.m. On Tuesday we will take, as mentioned by Senators Manning and Upton, the reforms that have been agreed by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and they will be laid before the House on Tuesday. I am obviously pleased about that. Hopefully, the reforms will be passed by the House and implemented after Easter on a trial basis until the summer recess.
I mentioned last week a motion on EC legislation relating to consumer protection. We will have a debate on that motion on Tuesday between 4 p.m. and 6 p.m.; on Wednesday, we will take the Environmental Protection Agency Bill from the Dáil. We will discuss other issues with the Whips when we complete the Order of Business today.
I have said all along that we would not conclude the debate on the Culliton report today. Depending how the debate progresses, we will discuss it either next week or after the Easter recess.
The Whips can discuss the position about the Maastricht debate to see how we should handle it. I, like other Senators, am concerned that the real issue of Maastricht should not get caught up in other issues. Obviously, this House will play its role in ensuring that we separate the issues and we deal with Maastricht as it should be dealt with.
Finally, I suggest that Senator O'Keeffe might use some other way of raising the issue he spoke of. I have listened to him both in this House and on a television programme.
Order of Business agreed to.