Today's Order of Business is Item No. 1 from now until 6 p.m. There will be a sos between 6 p.m. and 7 p.m. with business continuing on to 8 p.m.
Death of Former Member. - Order of Business.
May I ask the Leader of the House, in view of the widespread concern about the quality of information which was available during the recent referendum, if he would consider calling together the party leaders and the Whips, perhaps during the summer recess, to see how this House could improve the way in which we debate EC matters so that at least we can be seen to be playing our part as a House which has a proper European dimension?
I would like to agree with what Senator Manning said about the importance of giving full and proper debate of these important matters. In my opinion this did not happen with regard to the Maastricht Treaty. That is over now and we have to accept the considerably expressed view of the Irish people on that matter.
Would the Leader of the House consider giving time at some stage in the ensuing weekends in taking motion 41 on the Order Paper relating to the Adelaide Hospital in the names of Senator Brendan Ryan and myself? I am aware that this has been discussed as an Adjournment Matter on the motion of Senator Ross. The reason I am asking for a fuller debate at this stage is simply because, despite the reassurances given by the Minister at that stage, these appear to have been countermanded to at least some extent by press statements from the chairman of the board, Professor McConnell, and indeed from the annual report of the board issued last week. In order to afford the Government an opportunity to clear this up and to discuss the matter fully, perhaps the Leader of the House would consider taking some substantial motion on the Adelaide Hospital?
May I ask the Leader of the House if the Electoral Bill will be simply considered on Committee Stage today, and indeed if the rumours of an impending guillotine in relation to this Bill were "a little bit previous", in the words of the late Brendan Corish. I would like to ask the Cathaoirleach if he has resolved the báinín jacket crisis, which appears to have been part of his duty——
It is not relevant to the Order of Business.
——and to allow Senator Ó Foighil to go on to lead his party, the báinín jacket party, properly from now on, giving full expression to all his emblems.
Furthermore, I would suggest it is not a crisis.
Given the lessons we have learned in the recent weeks on the need for greater information in the public domain with regard to matters European, it has been a suggestion of this party for some time that this House could be the primary House with regard to discussing European matters and I support Senator Manning in his call for a wider discussion in this connection. Indeed it is appropriate, given the visibility and the non-visibility of some of our MEPs, that we should seriously consider for this House a right of audience for our MEPs in Seanad Éireann. This House could benefit from that. More importantly, by our involvement in such debates and by conveying information regularly, it would help the public considerably. It is clear there will be a number of further matters of major importance to this country which will affect our membership in Europe. Now is the time we should begin the process of allowing our MEPs a right of audience in this House and ensure that Seanad Éireann plays the primary role with regard to European matters.
I am aware that we have spent a fair amount of time on the Electoral Bill. While no one wants to see it being curtailed, what would more concern some people on this side of the House is that time be given to certain sections, because there is a danger if we just keep going on. All Members should be conscious of the fact that we are not out to create records in the length of time it takes to deal with certain sections. It might be an idea if either the Whips or party leaders could get together to schedule sections to be completed by certain stages to ensure that later sections, some of which I would regard as more important, will get adequate time.
I support the request to the Leader of the House by Senator Norris that we have a debate on the Adelaide Hospital, because I personally, and the Government, would be very anxious to allay the concerns of those involved in the Adelaide Hospital, this hospital which has given a great service to this city and to this country. Therefore I will certainly join in welcoming a possible debate in relation to this.
I support Senator Manning's request for a debate on the European Community. I think it is vital that we give our MEP's audience here. I would like that debate to include, above all, the question of subsidiarity as it is a basic plank of the European Community — or is supposed to be — and it should be considered in the light of what we are going to do about it in this country. As I have asked before, is there any news when the local elections are going to be held for town commission and UDCs.
It is not a matter for the Order of Business.
I am asking if the Leader could tell us when everybody in Ireland is going to have access to a council at sub-county level. I think it is very relevant because it is a counter balance to the centralisation which we are going to see as we go further into Europe.
With regard to the point raised by Senator Upton on the guillotine, we were assured that there would be no guillotine on either the Electoral (No. 2) Bill or on the Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill; I think Senator Upton was misled on that point.
I would like to ask the Leader when we will debate motion 47 on the Order Paper, the setting up of a Press Council. I am sure Members will agree that such a debate is needed, considering the unwarranted attack on the incoming US Ambassador in the media in the last few days. I am sure the House will agree that we should extend a hearty céad míle fáilte to this representative of America——
(Interruptions.)
The Senator may not pursue the matter on the Order of Business.
I am asking the Leader when he intends to have a debate on the Press Council motion. A Chathaoirligh, you have given latitude to Members on the other side and I feel I am entitled at least to amplify my request.
Senator Mooney, I want to make it clear that the role of the Chair is one on which to retain independence and I would like to think I am fair to every Member of the House.
I would like to make two points. First, would the Leader of the House address the effectiveness of the reforms of the Seanad, particularly in relation to grievance time, and, with the other Whips, would he look again at their effectiveness and see if they are achieving what we hoped?
Second, may I mention again to the Leader of the House that on a number of occasions I asked for a debate on the proliferation of drugs in this country. There is not a town in this country that is not affected by it and that, in itself, creates a subculture of crime. I deem it appropriate that this House, in the very near future, would spend time discussing this item which is so very pertinent to Irish people.
May I ask for clarification from the Leader of the House on the following matter? The Order Paper that was circulated to us is not the same as the Order Paper that is here; one Order Paper indicated that the guillotine would be imposed today on the Committee Stage of the Electoral Bill. I hope that is not the case because it would mean the Leader was going back on what he promised this House, considering this is very important legislation initiated in this House and that we should debate it comprehensively. I am asking the Leader to confirm whether there is an anomaly in the two Order Papers that have been circulated. Any delay in the Committee Stage debate was not due to the Senators; it has been due to the fact that there has been a stonewalling of the issues that have been raised by us. Therefore, we had to tease them out to a greater extent than would have been necessary if we had got straightforward answers to the questions we posed in the various amendments.
Does the Leader plan to give us time next week to discuss the Green Paper, if the most recent rumour is correct and that it will be published this week? Is it intended to introduce legislation to disclose the contributions to political parties, considering the various items that have been raised at the beef tribunal in the last number of days?
Finally, in relation to Senator Ó Foighil, may I say go bhfuil an báinín go han-deas aige?
In view of the announcement by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy O'Malley, of upgrading the N69, I would like to express my surprise that the opportunity to confirm this on the Adjournment this evening was refused.
I will discuss that with the Senator. It is not appropriate to raise it on the floor of the House.
I support the call for debate on the Green Paper on mental health. I also support Senator Cullen who suggested an audience to MEPs. Rather than granting them a right of audience, they should be given the privilege of an audience.
First, I want to mention grievance time. It is crazy to start thinking about having a review of grievance time because it has not settled down yet, as many Senators are using the Order of Business as grievance time. We need more time before we start reviewing it.
In relation to the Control of Dogs (Amendment) Bill, this has given rise to concern. Yesterday a nine year old child was mauled by a dog and is in hospital at the moment. In view of that, I would ask the Leader of the House to try to expedite having the Control of Dogs (Amendment) Bill before the House.
In relation to the Adelaide Hospital, we already have had a very good discussion on it and we got reassurances. I am afraid Senator Norris is correct, however, because there is a lot to be worried about now. I am anxious that the Leader would facilitate taking that motion also.
May I first respond to Senators Manning, Norris and Cullen with regard to information on Maastricht? One of the first interviews the Taoiseach gave after the referendum concerned the role the EC should play in future in providing information to all its members on all issues relating to EC legislation. I have no problem with that. I would like to make the point, and it is important for the record, that the Taoiseach opened the debate here on Maastricht. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Andrews and the Minister for Finance, Deputy Ahern, were here on several occasions throughout the debate. I repeat, I have no problem with Senator Manning's suggestion that the Seanad should discuss playing a bigger role in this area because I have no doubt that as time passes, European legislation will play a major part in our everyday life. It is important therefore, that this House would be involved.
With regard to Senators Norris, Conroy and Harte on motion No. 41 — the Adelaide Hospital — I have no problem on that either. The Minister when he was here on the Adjournment debate made clear what the Government's position was vis-á-vis the Adelaide. I will contact the Minister with a view to putting on record the views of Government on this issue.
Senator Mooney mentioned motion No. 47 — the possibility of setting up a Press Council. That will be the next Fianna Fáil Private Members' motion.
Senator O'Keeffe and others mentioned Seanad reform. As I have stated before, we are committed to a meeting of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges before the summer recess to review reform of the Seanad, and we will then report back to the House.
With regard to the Senator's suggestion in relation to the tragic situation concerning drugs, I am sure we will be able to have statements on that matter on a date before the end of the session. In regard to Senator Harte's concern about the Control of Dogs (Amendment) Bill, I have already made it clear that that matter will be dealt with before the end of this session.
Finally, with regard to the Electoral Bill which we are dealing with at the moment, I would like to put on record that we have spent five days on Second Stage and we have spent five days on Committee Stage up to this time, which amounts to 34½ hours. I would like to take up the suggestion of Senator Cosgrave of trying in some way to expedite the discussion, not to guillotine it in any way but to make progress. We have a very heavy legislative programme and it is important that we give due weight to each measure that comes to this House. It may well be that by the Whips and spokes-persons coming together we can deal with the various sections within a certain time frame, something which is done every day of the week. We recently adopted that procedure on the Finance Bill and it was deemed by everybody to be a very successful way of dealing with legislation.
The Electoral Bill is a very extensive and important Bill. Let there be no suggestion that we are giving anything but full treatment to it. We welcome the fact that it has been initiated in the House. Perhaps during the afternoon there may be an opportunity for the various people concerned to meet to see if we can formulate some way of dealing with Committee Stage. I am told by the Minister that he has already given a commitment that he will be coming back to the House on various amendments on Report Stage. I would like to get an opportunity on Report Stage to tease out further matters that Senators have raised. I would also like to take on board the suggestion of Senator Cosgrave and perhaps during the afternoon we will get a chance to structure the rest of the debate on Committee Stage.
Order of Business agreed to.