Today's Order of Business is items 1, 2 and 30. Item 2 will be taken until 6 o'clock and will continue tomorrow morning and afternoon. I am suggesting 20 minutes per spokesperson and 15 minutes thereafter on item 2. Item 30 will be taken between 6 p.m. and 8 p.m.
Order of Business.
On the Order of Business, I move that item 2a on the Supplementary Order Paper be taken in place of item 2 on today's order paper:
In view of the statement by the Tánaiste of 20 July 1993 that there was certainty in regard to the figures for the EC support for the national plan and his further statement that he was 100 per cent satisfied that these figures would not unravel, Seanad Éireann calls on the Government to clarify immediately the actual level of EC support for the plan, its consequential effect on the plan as published and the implications of these discrepancies for the competence of the Ministers directly involved in conducting international negotiations on behalf of Ireland.
I have to ask, are we living with Alice in Wonderland? As you may remember, a Chathaoirligh, one of the characters in Alice in Wonderland said: “Words mean what I say they mean.”
The Irish people were given a solemn commitment by the Tánaiste on 20 July that the financial underpinning for the National Development Plan was 100 per cent in place and that there would be no unravelling. Over the last 24 hours — as this party warned would happen due to the way in which the negotiations took place — there has been clear disagreement between the Irish Government and the President of the European Commission, Jacques Delors. It has reached the stage where Mr. Delors, perhaps carried away with Gallic excitement, has described the Irish Government as a liar, such is the gap between the figures presented by the Government to the Irish people and the figures now being discussed in Brussels. For that reason there is a sense of unreality about debating a national plan whose financial basis is now seriously in question.
The Tánaiste earlier today in the Dáil clearly backtracked from commitments he had given to the Irish people on a number of occasions. In such circumstances a debate on the national plan is pointless. We understand the importance of the national plan and we support every demand to get the greatest possible amount of money from the Community for the development of this country but there is no point having a sham national unity based on specious or incomplete statements given by our leaders on their return from Brussels.
If we are to have a proper debate we must know beforehand if there was an agreement. Was it a written agreement? What was in the agreement? Who signed the agreement? Where is the certainty that our leaders told us we could take for granted? Until these points are answered in this and in the other House the debate as proposed today is pointless. Our amendment gives the Government the opportunity to come clean with this House and with the Irish people on this matter.
I have given Senator Manning a degree of latitude for the obvious reason that he was moving amendment No. 2a. We do not want a debate on the National Development Plan on the Order of Business. We will have a debate on it, whether it is Item 2 or Item 2a and I appeal to Members to adhere to the spirit of the Order Paper and have our debate on that basis.
I second Senator Manning's proposal. It is not my intention to be critical of the Government on this until information is available, if it becomes available. I second the motion because it seeks clarification. I have no intention of referring to the plan in deference to you, a Chathaoirligh, but it would be a debate in a vacuum. There is a great deal of uneasiness, uncertainty and confusion among many people who have put much time into this. I presume that would apply to both sides of the House as the Members on the Government side have precisely the same need for clarification as we have. Holding a debate without knowing where the money is coming from, the amount of money, when and how it is due to be paid is not recommended. Therefore we seek a certain level of clarity. I withhold judgment on the rights and wrongs of the plan but there are unanswered questions and before we can discuss the points, issues, paragraphs and sections of the National Development Plan we must know if the bottom line is correct.
There is a need to have legislation on the Order Paper as soon as possible. I recognise and accept the fact that debating the National Development Plan is as important as any debate on legislation. I am not being critical of the Order of Business for today and tomorrow but I am seeking an indication of the legislative programme before this House over the next number of weeks. I ask the Leader of the House to outline this as soon as possible and also to indicate the legislation which will be initiated in this House so that Members can prepare their contributions.
I support the amendment proposed by Senator Manning. I want to know what we are meant to debate this afternoon. Is it this particular document? Is it the Government's intention to give back the £9 to the people who bought this plan from the Government Stationery Office?
To make up the millions.
What exactly are we being asked to debate this afternoon? This morning in the Dáil the Taoiseach said he did not want us to undermine Ireland's position. I can assure those on the opposite benches that it is not the intention of anybody on this side of the House to undermine Ireland's position. Ireland's position has already been sufficiently undermined without us contributing to that process. It is our intention to defend Ireland's position but there are serious questions which have to be asked and they need answers.
Those who lecture us on our national responsibility should not confuse our desire to fulfil our national responsibility with acquiescence to incompetence. They are not the same thing. We do not need a lecture about our national responsibility but we need to know what we are being asked to debate this afternoon as it has serious consequences for the future of the country.
I also support the amendment to the Order of Business because taking into consideration what has happened since the plan was published and the debate that has taken place in the Lower House, at this stage it bears no relation to what will happen eventually. I put it to the Leader of the House that what we are going to debate today is not a reality. In other words, what we will debate until 6 p.m. today and tomorrow are not the true facts of what will be the case. Could we perhaps turn the position around; would the Minister come into the House and tell us that the plan as it was presented to Brussels is not a fact and take contributions to improve the plan we have already——
I have indicated the position for the Order of Business.
I asked the Leader of the House last week on two occasions and he failed to answer — maybe he is in a better position to answer today; is there any possibility of having a debate on agriculture? This industry is in deep trouble and the wisdom of Members of this House is needed to help the wisdom of the Minister — which has not been portrayed well recently — to protect the incomes of Irish farmers.
A Chathaoirligh, I respect your request that we would not debate the national plan on the Order of Business but I must reject two allegations. First, the allegation of Senator Manning that the Tánaiste backtracked in his statement in the Dáil this morning; second, Senator Dardis's allegation that there was ineptitude. There was a solemn agreement between the President of the Commission and the Tánaiste on 20 July——
Made in a bar at two in the morning. That is not an agreement.
——witnessed by——
Was Senator Dardis there to see it?
——both the Secretary of the Department of the Taoiseach and the permanent representative. I would trust the Tánaiste, the Secretary of the Department of the Taoiseach and our permanent representative and officials of President Delors. It was a solemn agreement——
He must have the same advisers as President Bush. "Read my lips."
Senator O'Sullivan without interruption.
The national plan is the national plan and it stands. I will reserve any further statements until later.
I would like to ask the Leader when we will have a debate on the North of Ireland; I think it would be timely. I noted with some wry amusement that Senator O'Kennedy seems to be out of touch with his leader when he was saying last week on the Order of Business that it was vital that we have a debate on the Opsahl report — with which I agreed; simultaneously the Taoiseach was saying it was inappropriate for the Dáil. I was moved by the passionate demands for the debate from the Government side but it was put in an ironic perspective when I discovered that the debate collapsed through a lack of speakers on the Government side. Many of us on this side were precluded from speaking because we had spoken before the break on the Opsahl report.
I would like to support the passionate pleas from Senator O'Kennedy and his colleagues that we have a full and proper debate now not just on the Opsahl report but on the Hume-Adams talks and the general situation in the North. If Senators on the Government side were prepared to support this, I would be most humbly grateful, and I emphasise humble because I did detect a sense in which the Government side were indicating that I was rather pompous and self-promoting which, I have to say with regret, was probably true.
I also support the motion in the names of Senator Manning, Senator Farrelly and Senator Howard. I do not do this in a carping sense. No one can take pleasure in the unravelling situation because it is disadvantageous to this country. As Senator O'Sullivan said, there is a clear conflict of evidence. It is most worrying that the President of the European Commission, Mr. Delors, should suggest on the radio that the Irish Government was lying. That is strong language and this issue needs to be handled with great sensitivity.
I have two matters for the Leader of the House. The first relates to the Supplementary Order Paper and the motion in the names of Senator Manning, Senator Farrelly and myself. I will respect your request, a Chathaoirligh, that the national plan should not be discussed on the Order of Business. However, it is pointless to have a debate at this stage in view of the uncertainty that has arisen. The "paymaster" of the EC on radio today indicated a gap of £500 million. That is the equivalent of many programmes already costed in the national plan. Given that, it is unrealistic and impossible to have a reasonable and constructive debate on the subject.
I sympathise with the Leader because he has been placed in this position. Common sense calls for a review of the proposal to debate this subject, particularly because of the events of recent hours. The Leader should reconsider the Order of Business, not alone in view of the comments made here but——
You have moved into the realm of the plan itself. I would prefer that you did not.
I will conclude, I have made my point. I understand the difficulty for the Leader. I do not intend to engage in political point scoring on this matter because the national interest is involved.
My second point concerns papers laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas, specifically one on the Order Paper for 12 October, entitled European Communities (Trade in Bovine Breeding Animals, their Semen, Ova and Embryos) Regulations, 1993. I ask the Leader of the House if he would be prepared to provide Government time to discuss the implications of these regulations.
We tend to pay little attention to papers of this nature laid before the House. This document runs to 81 pages and is a product of Brussels bureaucracy. It has dangerous implications for the principal industry in Ireland and for the standard, status and health of our livestock and pedigree animals. It would be better for Ireland if at least part of this document were rescinded. Could the Leader also confirm these regulations do not come into effect for 21 sitting days after 12 October?
I am amazed at the opportunistic approach taken by the Opposition this afternoon regarding the National Development Plan. I consider it a cheap political ploy.
The Senator needs a halo.
There are enough people taking the shilling.
It appears that they are putting their political situation, which is in trouble already, ahead of the national interest at this stage. Only Senator O'Toole has adopted a constructive approach in so far as he said that he is prepared to await clarification.
Thank you. We are independent over here.
We do not agree very often but obviously we agree on this. As regards the Progressive Democrats, they were selling us down the road for £4.5 million on 30 June. Their position has been exposed. It appears that the Opposition is lining up with a Commissioner from across the water who is not very supportive of the Irish situation. They are helping out his case if anything and that is not in the national interest. It would be more appropriate in today's debate on the National Development Plan if they supported the efforts of the Government and of the Irish people to get the full return on what has already been committed. This should have complete support from all sides of this House. I am amazed that Senator Manning and the Fine Gael Party have gone down that road. The national interest is at stake here and they should support the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and the Government.
Senator, you have gone on too long. Senator Crowley.
As regards the issue raised by the Opposition Members, it shows short-sightedness on their part that they cannot appreciate the vision of the document laid before them and debate it constructively without trying to make cheap political gain out of the present situation.
On the Order of Business I wish to raise an issue I raised last week and several times previously. I ask the Leader if it would be possible in the very near future to have a debate on extradition. I have been informed by the Department of Justice that at some stage in the next session it intends to introduce a new extradition Bill with a view to reforming the extradition law as it stands. Before that Bill is drawn up account has to be taken of the situation that pertains in Britain now, especially with the right to silence being abandoned by the British Government and the miscarriages of justice, not only the Guilford Four, the Birmingham Six and the Maguire Seven but also the recent cases of Joseph Matthews and the other gentleman whose name eludes me at this moment. It is important that we discuss this issue before a Bill is drawn up so that the Minister may be made fully aware of the facts, how the Members of this House see those facts and what should be included in that Bill.
I agree with those who are opposed to the change in the Order in Business. I have never heard such carping, whingeing and crying. It epitomises a party which is in crisis, as one of its front bench members said this morning. They would like to get away from discussing their own problems and try to turn round an argument which could be building up against them in both Houses today. They are carping, whingeing and criticising the largest amount of money ever granted. Whether it is £8 billion, £7.5 billion or whatever——
It was £8.8 billion.
If I went into my bank manager this morning and asked him for £8 and he said "I will give you £7.80 and you do not have to pay it back"——
What if Aer Lingus had it?
Senator Lanigan without interruption.
——I would grab him by the arms and say "thank you very much". None of you want to discuss this because you have no plans to bring forward and are absolutely and utterly——
(Interruptions.)
Senator Lanigan, address the Leader through the Chair.
I ask the Leader to propose the Order of Business as it is and to forget about the whingeing from the other side. Jealously will get them nowhere. In the near future may we have a debate on the sentencing procedures or lack of sentencing in our courts? There was a case in court over the past couple of days where £810,000 worth of an illegal drug was being transported through this country and the judge, in his innocence or perhaps ignorance, let the people who were transporting this drug out on the streets again. There is a lot of concern regarding the amount of drugs being transported and delivered around the country. There was evidence that those involved in this case were transporting the drug, yet they are back on the streets damaging the children of Ireland and, indeed, Europe.
Have you a question for the Leader of the House?
I ask the Leader to raise this matter in the House. The Minister for Justice, Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn, must explain why judges are giving different sentences in similar cases throughout the country.
As one of the constructive Independent Senators, I never thought my knowledge of Alice in Wonderland and Alice Through the Looking Glass would be so useful in this House. The reply to the statement “Words mean what I choose them to mean,” was: “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things”. We could have a good philosophical debate this afternoon.
Not on the Order of Business.
As we speak, we note with pleasure that the Minister for Health, Deputy Howlin, is signing the contract for Tallaght hospital which is part of the National Development Plan and I hope it is for 100 per cent of the hospital not 90 per cent.
I support Senator Manning in relation to debate on the National Development Plan. Regardless of what Members on the other side say, the President of the Commission, Mr. Delors, used the word "liar". Do we want to create further confusion in regard to the National Development Plan or do we want to hear the truth? We cannot debate a plan when we do not know what the figures are.
Is the Leader of the House prepared to allow one or two days to debate agriculture? There is a lot of confusion in this regard; it is like the National Development Plan. One cannot get last year's grants in relation to the slaughter premium, the 21 month premium, etc. The entire agricultural sector is bogged down in regard to these grants and other grants which have been promised between now and Christmas. I ask that the Minister come to the House to clear up these issues for farmers and to make alternative arrangements if he is unable to pay moneys due from Europe.
I support Senator Manning's call to amend the Order of Business. We have an opportunity to clarify this matter in the House today. Decisions will be taken and figures will be finalised in Brussels tomorrow. It is imperative to put this matter on the record of the House. Some Senator on the Government side stated that joint representations must be made to Europe to ensure maximum funding. The situation is indicative of an incompetent Government which is in crisis. Members have a responsibility to act in the national interest. I call on the Leader of the House to reconsider his position on the Order of Business and to do as Senator Manning requested by affording this House the opportunity to put its views to Europe on this matter.
We have acted in a responsible manner in this matter. We are all anxious that Ireland receive maximum funding for the National Development Plan, but we must bear in mind that these funds must be matched by semi-State bodies and the private sector. If the Government cannot get its figure right, the private sector will lack confidence and that will seriously affect the plan.
We reject the proposed amendment to the Order of Business. This morning in the Dáil the Tánaiste gave a clear commitment to implement fully the National Development Plan, while the Taoiseach also stated the Government's resolve to implement the National Development Plan in full. If Members on the opposite side of the House expect me to believe a report by a Commissioner rather than the Tánaiste or the Taoiseach, I reject that. We in this House should be seen to be absolutely in full support, united in our efforts to ensure that the agreement which was reached recently on these figures is implemented tomorrow. For us to call off a debate on the National Plan which we have submitted only weakens our case. I listened to Members on the far side of the House——
The motion is not calling off the debate.
They have two arguments — they want everything to happen, they want the money to come, yet they want the debate to be called off. We should be standing fully united today in the best interests of the country.
We want a different debate.
Both the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste have spoken today and they are both on record as saying that the plan will be implemented in full. Some Members may want to go down the road some of them travelled in the last election, when one party was suggesting £4.5 billion and another party was suggesting £6 billion. In fairness to all concerned, the people who spoke this morning have been proved right and this House should be in total and utter support of their efforts.
One or two other issues were raised. I have no problem whatsoever with arranging an agriculture debate, but I would like to know which aspect of it the Senator wants to speak about. Senator Farrelly should bring forward some wording and tell me what aspect of agriculture he wants to speak on. Senator D'Arcy has mentioned some agriculture matters. To talk in global terms and claim that everything is going badly at the moment is totally wrong and Members know that. If Senators tell me what aspect of agriculture they wish to debate, I will have no problem asking the Minister to come in. I will come back to Senator Howard on the issue he raised. On Senator Crowley's request for a debate on extradition, I am sure with the agreement of the Whips that we can find two hours for that on a Thursday. Next week we will deal with the Matrimonial Home Bill. With regard to Senator O'Toole's and Senator Manning's request in the last week for new legislation, I assure the House that we will be extremely busy in the next couple of months with many Bills being initiated in this House.
Senator Manning has moved an amendment to the Order of Business that item No. 2a on the Supplementary Order Paper be inserted instead of item No. 2. Is the amendment being pressed?
Yes.
The question is: "That item 2a on the Supplementary Order Paper be taken instead of item 2."
Question put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 16; Níl, 29.
Tá
- Belton, Louis J.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Dardis, John.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Norris, David.
- O'Toole, Joe.
- Henry, Mary.
- Honan, Cathy.
- Howard, Michael.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Neville, Daniel.
- Reynolds, Gerry.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
Níl
- Bohan, Eddie.
- Byrne, Seán.
- Calnan, Michael.
- Cashin, Bill.
- Crowley, Brian.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Farrell, Willie.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Tom.
- Gallagher, Ann.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kelly, Mary.
- Kiely, Dan.
- Lanigan, Mick.
- Lee, Joe.
- Lydon, Don.
- McGowan, Paddy.
- Maloney, Sean.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- O'Brien, Francis.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Sullivan, Jan.
- Quinn, Feargal.
- Roche, Dick.
- Townsend, Jim.
- Wall, Jack.
- Wright, G.V.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Cosgrave and O'Toole; Níl, Senators Mullooly and Wall.
Question declared lost.
During the vote it was suggested that the opening spokes-persons should speak for 30 minutes and that speakers thereafter should have 15 minutes.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I thank the Leader of the House for making that change. May I also raise a point about the heat in the House. Is there any way the heat could be turned it down?
I am informed that the heating is being turned off now.
Order of Business agreed to.