Today's Order of Business will be items Nos. 1 and 2. It is proposed notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that the proceedings on the Finance Bill, 1992, and on the motion of concurrence with the earlier signature of the bill by the President, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 4 p.m. today by one question which shall, in relation to the recommendations, include only recommendations set down by the Government. There will be a sos between 1.30 p.m. and 2.30 p.m.
Order of Business.
Did the Whips agree to conclude at 4 p.m. today? It is not my understanding that they did; it is not acceptable to us.
It is news to me too, and not in the spirit of how we conducted the debate on the Bill up to now.
I want to raise a matter which arises out of the interview given by the Taoiseach yesterday and reported on the front page of The Irish Times today. It is now clear that this House has been systematically misled over a long period on a very specific issue. Time after time in this House we have been told, in response to questions from myself and other Senators, that the reform of the laws on homosexuality arising from the European Court judgment would be part of the Government's programme for this year. We were told that during the time of Minister Burke, we were told it by the present Minister; we have been told it many times. The Irish Minister to the Council of Europe, acting on behalf of the Government, assured the Council of Europe that this would be part of the Government's programme for 1992. Yesterday the Taoiseach, simply because there is a little trouble in his own party, said this would not be the case, that it was news to him. He has reneged on a solemn commitment given many times in this House.
If what happens here is not based on truth, this House cannot work. We ask questions in good faith; I know the Leader of the House answered in good faith on the basis of information he had. Nonetheless, I want a full explanation from the Leader of the House next week as to what is the position. The Taoiseach said yesterday that the Department of Justice were not involved; Department of Foreign Affairs said that the Department of Justice were involved. Who is telling lies to whom on this issue? This is an issue where in good faith, we have been told over and over again that there would be legislation.
I do not accuse the Leader of the House of acting in bad faith in this matter, he simply brought back the messages he was given, but I want to know the truth on this issue. Are we going to have that legislation this year? Are we ever going to have it? Do people have to drag this country through the European Court again to get the matter resolved?
The Senator has explained his case.
We on this side of the House take this matter very seriously.
In relation to the guillotine at 4 p.m., I do not like that way of doing business. I acknowledge that the debate will probable fizzle out by that stage but I do not like that approach.
I, too, join with Senator Manning in expressing my regret and dismay at the contents and the tone of the Taoiseach's interview in one of this morning's newspapers. Week after week in this House we have asked questions about this legislation and been given assurances that it would be before this House in the near future. Now it looks as if it is going to be put on the long finger. That is unacceptable. This raises very serious questions in relation to credibilty regarding commitments which are given and accepted in good faith.
Would the Leader of the House in the very near future make time available for a debate on the implications of the Common Agricultural Policy developments, which we welcome with some reservations. It is important to have a debate on it to tease out all the implications, particularly the aspects that relate to the price of food for consumers.
My point relates to that raised by Senator Upton. In view of the agreement reached yesterday in Brussels and as this is the most significant event in Irish agriculture for very many years, would the Leader inquire from the Minister for Agriculture and Food if he would be prepared to come to the House and give his views on the agreement so that we can debate it and have statements on the matter in view of its significance not just for farmers but for the economy, agri-business and consumers? I ask the Leader to make strong representations to the Minister to come to the House and make time available so that we can debate this very important matter.
Could we have a debate on the Earth Summit which takes place in Rio in early June? It is important that the Seanad discuss these important environmental issues and perhaps a debate could be organised during the process of the Earth Summit.
I congratulate the Minister, Deputy Walsh, and Commissioner MacSharry. Like my two colleagues, Senators Upton and Dardis I ask the Leader to invite the Minister to the House as early as possible.
I support Senator Haughey's call for a debate on the Earth Summit in Rio. I understand that is being considered; perhaps the Leader would give some information to the House on this matter. It is important and I believe the Leader will be flexible in response to this request.
I am glad the question of the European Court judgment has been raised. I will not go on at length about it because I know I would not be allowed.
It has been raised twice.
It is an important matter, particularly because an undertaking was given to the meeting of the Council of Ministers in Strasbourg and this appears to be breached again by the statement of the Taoiseach. As a result, I regret I have to move that motion 42 be inserted before item No. 1 on the Order of Business. I propose an alteration to the Order of Business: That item No. 42 should be taken first. I regret if this is seen as disruptive, but the Government have disrupted my life for a very considerable number of years; I have been pursuing this matter for about 20 years.
I join other Senators in calling for a debate on agriculture and congratulate the Minister and the Commissioner on the outcome of the EC negotiations. Bread and butter issues should take priority over social issues.
We will be supporting the point made very strongly by my colleague, Senator Manning, and the vote that will now be taken.
Is the Senator seconding the proposal?
I second the proposal made by Senator Norris on the Order of Business.
Last week in the House, the Leader, Senator Wright, assured me that he would discuss with me and our Whip the ordering and scheduling of time for the Finance Bill. I accepted that in good faith and I had no reason to do otherwise. Up until late last night, there was no indication that there would be a guillotine today on this issue. I was available all day yesterday to discuss this issue and to my knowledge, it has not been agreed with the Whips. I stand to be corrected on that, but I doubt if I will be corrected. It is creative thinking on behalf of the Leader's adviser that any agreement was made on this issue.
Having said that, it is quite likely we will not even need up to 4 o'clock today, depending on the amount of interest in the different sections. There is a principle involved here. If something was assured last week by the Leader in the House and something else subsequently happens, I do no think we can accept it. It is the same principle in relation to the messages and answers various Senators have been getting on the point raised by my colleague, Senator Manning, and others in the House today.
I support those Senators who have asked for an urgent debate on the Common Agricultural Policy reform proposals. This is of critical importance to all of us in this House. It is not the preserve of any sector, neither the rural nor the urban sector, because there will be a spin off upstream and downstream from the farm gate in relation to these proposals. I thank the Leader for next Thursday's debate on the Earth Summit which has been scheduled for our Order Paper next week. I wonder how quickly we could have a debate on the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy while it is still relevant.
I, too, do not accept what the Leader of the House said in relation to the ordering of business today. It is inappropriate that there should be a guillotine on this Bill. The number of recommendations before us would indicate that we can easily deal with the business today without any great difficulty, but to specify a cut off point without prior agreement, is unacceptble. We have always opposed the principle enunciated from the other side that there should be a guillotine. There should be no limit on debate unless it is expressly agreed to by all parties.
In relation to the Common Agricultural Policy, a major step has been taken. It behoves us to ensure that there is a full debate in this House on the matter. I suggest that not only do we invite the Minister here but, having regard to some of the wide ranging discussions we had on reform in the Seanad, we should also invite the Commissioner. The Commissioner has been dealing with this for a long time and we should invite him as a guest speaker to the House on the major restructuring of the Common Agricultural Policy.
I support the proposal that motion No. 42 be taken as the first item on the Order of Business. It seems that the Taoiseach is indicating he is removing it from the legislative proposals for 1992. This is in line with what happened yesterday when The Guardian newspaper was taken from the shelves——
The Senator is drifting from the Order of Business.
The Taoiseach indicated he will not proceed with the proposals we understood would be brought forward this year; in fact, they have been delayed since 1988. The Taoiseach is putting the Maastricht Treaty in jeopardy by running away from the European obligations we have already entered into.
I join with the exhortations to the Leader of the House to have a debate on the Common Agricultural Policy. This is important because no all of us share the view that this is a good day for Ireland. I want the debate because I would like to put it on the record my view that from now on the incomes of Irish farmers are destined to come through the post——
I will not have a speech.
For the sake of clarity, the alternative view should be put. These incomes are questionable in the long term. In order to put the alternative view, I would welcome a debate.
I, too, call on the Leader to arrange a full debate on the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy which will have far reaching effects on the entire economy. The arrangement that has been worked out is far from good for the Irish economy.
I do not want a speech. The Senator is going into detail.
Yesterday I called for a debate on health, a matter of great urgency, and I reiterate that call now.
It is not my style or my way of doing business but Senator Doyle mentioned about negotiation, consultations and discussions on today's business. Last week I arranged with her and the officials — I checked while she was speaking — that we would order the business as we did last night. It was suggested in our discussions that 4 p.m. would be a suitable time to conclude today's debate on this Bill. It has to be dealt with in a timeframe. I am quite clear that 4 p.m. was the time that was suggested.
There was no question of a guillotine.
Senator Doyle, the Leader is replying, please.
The Leader knows me better than to suggest I would agree to a guillotine.
The Senator agreed to 4 p.m.
The Leader is replying on the Order of Business.
For three weeks in a row certain members of parties have stood up and said they did not agree to certain items when their Whips had agreed the week before.
We did not agree. That is incorrect.
The Leader is replying. Senator Doyle is being disorderly.
Members of three different parties have stood up for three weeks in a row and said they do not agree to the business when their Whips had previously agreed it.
We did not agree. That is not true.
The only way we can organise the House is by the Whips agreeing to business and so on.
On a point of order, on the paper which went out to our party last week no time was included because it was our understanding that no agreement had been reached. Maybe there is a genuine misunderstanding. On the paper that went our from our office no time——
All I am saying to the Leader of the Fine Gael Party is that in discussions last week a time — 4 p.m. today — was suggested and agreed between officials. There is a time frame in respect of this Bill. It must be brought to a conclusion. It was a mistake not to have a time at which we would finish last night and it will not happen again. There will be a time frame as to when we should finish something.
It might have been suggested.
I am trying to put some order on the House. I am quite clear in my mind that last week I suggested the Senator should give me a time, 4 p.m. or 5 p.m. and 4 p.m. was agreed.
It was not agreed.
The Senator is being disorderly.
I apologise.
With regard to Senator Manning and other contributions which related to items Nos. 42 and 20, I will convey the views of the Opposition to the Ministers in question. Many Senators spoke about the success of the talks in Brussels over the past few days. It was quite interesting to hear the contributions from the Opposition and I am sure somebody will look through the record over the past year on Common Agricultural Policy and what was to be delivered by Commissioner MacSharry and this Government. I assure the House that yesterday at 12 noon, I wrote to the Department of Agriculture and Food to suggest that the Minister would give a couple of hours to the House next week and I have no doubt that as soon as he comes back that will happen. Senator Hourigan rightly said it has far-reaching effects for the economy. It will be up to those involved in the various Departments to ensure that the reductions in price structures of our basic food products will be passed on to the consumer. I hope that through the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, as suggested, we may invite the Commissioner between now and the end of his session to come to the House and address us.
With regard to the Earth Summit, we will have a debate on that next week. Fianna Fáil's Private Members' Time relates to that issue as well.
An amendment to the Order of Business has been moved by Senator Norris: "That motion No. 42 be inserted before Item No. 1".
Amendment put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 11; Níl, 21.
Tá
- Costello, Joe.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Hourigan, Richard V.
- Howard, Michael.
- McDonald, Charlie.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Norris, David.
- O'Reilly, Joe.
- Ross, Shane P.N.
- Staunton, Myles.
- Upton, Pat.
Níl
- Bennett, Olga.
- Byrne, Seán.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Conroy, Richard.
- Dardis, John.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Farrell, Willie.
- Fitzgerald, Tom.
- Foley, Denis.
- Haughey, Seán F.
- Honan, Tras.
- Kiely, Dan.
- Kiely, Rory.
- Lanigan, Michael.
- Lydon, Don.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- O'Donovan, Denis A.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- Ryan, Eoin David.
- Wright, G.V.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Norris and O'Reilly; Níl, Senators E. Ryan and Fitzgerald.
Amendment declared lost.
Question: "That the Order of Business be agreed to", put and declared carried.