Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 4 Jun 1992

Vol. 133 No. 1

Order of Business.

Before I give the Order of Business I want to give the details for the Maastricht debate: the debate will be tomorrow from 10.30 a.m. to 1.30 p.m. We suggested yesterday that it was in the interest of the House to have the most up-to-date debate and information. The Minister will open the debate and he will have 15 minutes; each Senator will have ten minutes and the Minister will have five minutes to conclude.

Today's Order of Business will be item No. 1 until 1 p.m.; there will be a sos from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.; from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. we will take item No. 2. I suggested yesterday that we would carry over item No. 2 to next week, or whenever is suitable.

I commend the Leader of the House for the way he organised the debate on Maastricht tomorrow and for the fact that the Minister will be present. Hopefuly, he will have something substantial to say. I suggest that the Leader ask the Minister, if, at the end of the session, he will take questions from Members. There probably will be questions that will need to be teased out, and it would be very useful if the Minister could answer questions at that stage.

I am disappointed that the informal arrangement which I understood existed for tomorrow has been done away with. The Leader told me — and I think he told the House — that the Maastricht debate would be from 2 p.m. I find this change an embarrassment because I booked a studio to do a broadcast about James Joyce and I cannot get out of it. I did so on the understanding that——

What a relief.

I am glad Senator Honan is still expressing her democratic sentiments.

Senator Norris, without interruption.

I discussed this with the Leader and he agreed with my suggestion that there should be a ten minute limit and that the debate should be extended to three hours. I find it ironic that I will be excluded from the debate, but I have to accept it; if that is the will of the House, that is the way things go. I will pass from that, having registered my mild and very gentlemanly protest, and ask the Leader in light of comments——

Self-assessment.

Self-assessment is a very valuable part of the intellectual tradition of the university as the Senator ought to know.

Senator Norris, please, without interruption.

Will the Leader give time for Motion 41 to be taken? This deals with the Adelaide Hospital and is becoming ever more urgent. I am aware that Senator Ross raised this matter on the Adjournment and very kindly gave me some time on it but this, I understand, does not preclude a fuller discussion, particularly in the light of the comments reported in today's media by the chairman of the board, Professor David McConnell and in the light of what the Minister, Deputy O'Connell, said during the debate where he expressed the hope that the ethos of the Meath Hospital would be included. I understand the Meath Hospital is being particularly difficult on this. If the ethos to which the Minister referred was a fact about 50 years ago, there was a coup in the board of the Meath and almost every non-Roman Catholic consultant was fired——

The Senator is making a speech.

——and I hope this ethos will not be——

Are we debating the Tallaght Hospital?

I have indicated to Senator Norris that he is making a speech and that is not allowed on the Order of Business.

I understand that and will not continue with this item. I would like to ask if the item in my name on the Supplementary Order Paper dealing with harmonisation of asylum policy may be taken fairly soon. In the meantime, I ask the Leader of the House to convey to the Ministers for Justice and Foreign Affairs the concern many of us feel at the handling of cases such as that of the Libyan, Marey Gutraini, who I understand in recent days was taken and beaten by officers which is in violation of his constitutional rights.

That is not relevant to the Order of Business.

I compliment the Leader on the way he has arranged the debate for tomorrow morning. I also compliment him on the time-span of ten minutes, which is perfectly adequate. What is the position in relation to the Education Bill I spoke about yesterday, namely, the one which is designed to make grants available to third level students who are of mature years? Can we expect to have a debate on item No. 47 which is in the name of the Leader and in the names of all the Fianna Fáil Senators. It relates to the setting up of a press council. I am very interested in that and I would like to know what he has in mind. Will the press council have teeth?

I would like to remind the House of old times here when we used to have requests for debates on banking. It seems to have been from another era. I would like to ask the Leader of the House if he has quite forgotten about the O'Keeffe initiative in banking and if we can expect the debate on banking to take place before the establishment of the O'Keeffe institute of banking studies.

In view of the fever pitch of excitement about European union, have we lost sight altogether of promises which were made? June is normally the month for local elections. We were promised eight regional authorities and sub-regional structures. These are essential if we are to counterbalance the centralisation which will take place following European union. The Taoiseach spoke to us about subsidiarity but we do not see it being put into practice. Have we lost sight of this now and are we going to hear only about centralisation in the European context?

With reference to tomorrow's debate, I repeat the most valuable service the Minister can perform in the House tomorrow is to tell us what is the precise legal significance of the exercise through which we will go on 18 June.

I would like to raise the issue of the banking system in Ireland and to say that I have not forgotten it. It is now over 12 months since I first looked for this debate. Various issues have sidetracked it and we have not had the opportunity to have such a debate. I now ask the Leader of the House if he can confirm today that such a debate will be held in the very near future. On a previous occasion I asked for a debate on the common contract as it relates to consultants. It is a very important factor and one about which many of us have major concerns. I ask the Leader of the House to make time for a debate or statements on this issue in the near future.

In this year of the Olympics, I ask the Leader of the House to make time available to discuss the organisation of the International Olympic Committee and the Irish Olympic Committee, particularly in view of the fact that a Mr. Hickey, president of the Irish Olympic Committee, who continuously gives out about Government, politicians——

It is not relevant to the Order of Business.

He is the president of a self-perpetuating body.

It is a subject which is dear to my heart but it is not relevant.

I ask the Leader to have a discussion on the organisation of the Olympics and I ask him to request the Minister with responsibility for sport to come here and discuss the Olympics particularly in view of a programme which was televised on BBC the other night in connection with their attitude towards drug taking amongst top Olympic athletes, their attitudes towards Governments, their self-per-petuating——

The Senator is making a speech.

I am not making a speech I am asking the Leader in this year of the Olympics for a full discussion on the funding of the International Olympic Committee; to have the Minister with responsibility for sport here to discuss the funding of the Irish Olympic Committee; to ask the Irish Olympic Committee; where they get their money from, where they spend it and to ask the International Olympic Committee——

The question has been put and I am sure the Leader will reply.

Send a delegation from the Seanad to Barcelona.

I was going to suggest that we might have a meeting of Seanad Éireann in Barcelona——

If the entire Seanad went on a deputation to Barcelona it would not cost as much as it would cost the president of the Irish Olympic Committee to travel.

That is not relevant, much as we like to discuss it. I am sure the Leader will reply.

I support Senator Lanigan. I saw the BBC programme the Senator referred to and it was an appalling revelation. We are funding the IOC and they are self-perpetuating——

It is not relevant to today's Order of Business.

I am reinforcing Senator Lanigan's request.

It is ideal for a Private Members' motion. I call the Leader of the House to reply.

It is disgraceful.

In regard to the time of tomorrow's debate obviously no matter what time we pick it will not suit everybody but the House endeavours to have the best debate possible. The Minister is available at that time tomorrow. I will leave it at that. With regard to questions for the Minister, I will pass on that request to him and await his view.

Motion 41 will be reviewed and it may well be a situation we will take on board. Motion 47, dealing with the press council, will be dealt with within the next fortnight. With regard to statements on the banks raised by Senators O'Keeffe and Upton, we will debate that next Thursday and we will try, if agreement is reached, to have more than two hours for that debate. I suspect that many Senators will want to be involved in that discussion and we will arrange for more than two hours.

With regard to Senator Lanigan's comments on the overall policy of the Government regarding sporting bodies, it may well be, as the Cathaoirleach rightly said, ideal material for next Wednesday's Private Members' motion.

We will sit for four days next week on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday and until 8 p.m. on Tuesday night.

Any news about the regional authorities or local elections?

The Leader has replied.

Order of Business agreed to.
Top
Share