Today's Order of Business is Items 2, 1 and 3. Item 2 will be taken without debate, Item 1 will follow and then we will discuss the Irish Aviation Authority Bill, 1993, Second Stage, until 4 p.m. There will be a sos between 1 p.m. and 2 p.m.
Order of Business
On the Order of Business, may I ask the Leader of the House if he could respond to requests made yesterday from all sides concerning a debate on Northern Ireland? Could he indicate if he has such a debate in mind and if so, when it will be taken?
As I indicated to the Leader of the House this morning, I am not happy with the way business has been ordered this week. Items 1 and 2 on the Order Paper were not indicated to us last week. I know that Item 2 is a technical matter and Item 1 is fairly simple legislation. For those reasons, I will not oppose the Order of Business, but it is not satisfactory for the Government to come in at short notice and demand the House to take legislation of which notice has not been given. We will not accept this behaviour for the remainder of the term and we should be given adequate notice of upcoming legislation.
Taking items without discussion is not acceptable in this House and if Senators had a contribution to make, however brief — I am happy if there is a time limit on it — I ask the Leader to allow them to do so. I do not propose to speak on the matter myself because it is bad practice to behave in this fashion. On many occasions in this House, we have raised the practice of papers being laid before the House and being done on the affirmative basis. More legislation should require Ministers to bring orders before the House before they are implemented. I would not delay that process in any way — that is not my intention — but the parliamentary draftsman should be encouraged to ensure that Bills have the affirmative process we are seeing today, and on the other hand, that we would support that by processing them as quickly as possible. I would ask the Leader to take the words "without debate" from his report. If a Member wishes to speak for a short while, he or she should be entitled to do so.
I raised the question of a debate on the national plan with the Whips and the general consensus is that the detailed programmes will be discussed over the next number of months, as they become available. I am happy to go along with that. As regards a debate on Northern Ireland which was sought yesterday, the Leader of the House gave us a commitment that he would speak to the Tánaiste when he came back from Belfast. I had hoped that this debate could have taken place today.
When we seek a debate on Northern Ireland, different points of view are articulated on both sides of the House. It is not always necessary for the Taoiseach or the Tánaiste to be present, although it is open to them to be here. We have plenty to say without always seeking or demanding a response on Government policy on the day. The facility for Members to put forward their points of view is more important. This need has been stressed time and time again.
Members of the INTO in the North are concerned about the lasting damage to young people who are the passive or the real victims of violence. They witness murders or lose family members and still arrive in school on Monday morning. Major problems and implications arise from that. It is a side issue to violence in Northern Ireland which underlines the need to look at this from different points of view.
The way the business of the House is ordered is unsatisfactory. I accept Items 1 and 2 are of a technical nature and that it was indicated that the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1983 (Section 5) Order, 1993, would be before the House today. However, it is unsatisfactory that we do not have notice of something which is on the Order Paper. This is something which we should not accept. We will not oppose the Order of Business because this is a minor matter, but I ask the Leader of the House to ensure this does not happen on a regular basis and that this will be an exception. It is important that Members have notice so that we may consider matters before we debate them.
I will now refer to a matter which you, a Chathaoirligh, or the Leader of the House could bring before the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. Yesterday we had a time problem during Private Members' Business. Senator Doyle's contribution was curtailed because of the time available. Regularly we do not have enough time for Private Members' Business, but we have enough time for other matters.
Why do you not raise this matter with the Committee on Procedure and Privileges as you are a member of that committee?
As you, a Chathaoirligh, are chairman of the committee, I ask you to look into at this matter.
Do I have your support?
Although I have been critical of the delay in which proceedings have been ordered, there has been an improvement in that regard and that is welcome.
I ask the Leader of the House to initiate a debate as soon as possible on the drug problem, referred to yesterday by a number of Members. This problem not only relates to the capital city but to the rest of the country, including County Donegal. I call on the Leader to allow time for a debate on this issue.
Mr. Naughten
I ask the Leader of the House to allow time for a debate on the farm retirement scheme announced last week by the Minister for Agriculture. I emphasise the importance of such a debate which should take place in the near future. According to the Minister's statement, discussions on this plan will be concluded in Brussels by the end of November. There are four hiccups in relation to this scheme. Although it is an excellent scheme, these barriers must be removed. A similar situation to that which developed in relation to the farm retirement scheme in the 1970s, and other EC schemes in the 1980s, must not be allowed to develop. I ask the Leader to allow time for a debate so that we may have a meaningful scheme which is operational at ground level.
Since the debate on the Aer Lingus issue last July, there have been substantial developments in regard to various elements of the Cahill plan which are now being put in place. Time should be set aside to enable the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications to come to the House so that we can have a full debate on developments in Aer Lingus, and connected matters, taking into account various elements of the Cahill plan which are being put in place, and the success of negotiations to ensure the survival of Aer Lingus.
I support the call for a debate on the drugs problem. As the Senator on the Government benches indicated, this is not just a matter for inner city areas. I see this problem in the inner city hitting people at a younger age. Could I have a brief explanation about Item 1 on the Order Paper, the order dealing with the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Provision of Services) Bill, 1993?
I support the call by Senator Daly for a debate on the present situation in Aer Lingus. I ask the Leader of the House for guidance. I gave notice two weeks ago that I would object to a paper laid before the House entitled European Communities Trade in Bovine Breeding Animals Semen, Ova and Embryo Regulations, 1993. I await a veterinary report to enable me to ground my objection. I am concerned about the rule about 21 sitting days. I am satisfied I will have the report on time——
The Senator is making a speech. I know you want to elaborate on this matter.
I outline a problem with which any Member of the House may be confronted and this matter needs clarification. Some 21 sitting days, if they are Dáil sitting days, may have elapsed before I am in a position to proceed with my objection, although 21 Seanad sitting days would not have elapsed. I want clarification from the Leader as to where we stand on this matter. Objecting to papers laid before the Oireachtas is almost a new procedure. Is it 21 Dáil sitting days or 21 Seanad sitting days?
I agree with Senator Howard in relation to orders placed before the Houses. It should be 21 sitting days rather than 21 days. In regard to the heating in this House may I ask who regulates it? Hot-house flowers would wilt in this House. A window has been opened and it is only 10.30 a.m. Are the officials of the House trying to run Members out by turning up the heat?
There is so much hot air coming from the Government benches.
Most of the hot air in the House is generated on the Senator's side. There was a method of regulation where somebody turned the heat up or down. Apparently, somebody has a heat quotient at 90 degrees——
We will take this on board.
I ask the Leader to initiate a debate on the travelling people and their place in society. As a result of the Roads Authority Bill, travelling people can be removed from the side of the road and other places. There is nowhere for them to go. I hope regulations will be implemented so that halting sites are set up for travelling people. I am a member of two local authorities and we have halting sites in our area. We do not mind having these sites. Local authorities must be forced to have halting sites in areas where they are necessary. I ask the Leader to initiate a discussion on this matter because the people are also being hampered by this.
May we convey our best wishes to our former Taoiseach, Jack Lynch? I understand he has been in hospital for the last few days, and, of course, as the "real Taoiseach" I am sure we in the Upper House would wish him well. We understand that he is not too well, a Chathaoirligh. He is a Freeman of the great city of Cork and I, on behalf of the city and its people, want to wish him and his wife well.
I am sure we agree on that. Senator Roche had a query?
A number of Members have spoken about——
Did you slip up lads? You do not like him anyway.
You were not that kind to Mr. Lynch a few years ago. A number of Members have spoken of the need for further time to be allocated to issues related to the national plan. May I suggest that at an early stage we discuss the whole issue of transport in the context of the national plan? That would encompass, among other matters, Aer Lingus, the ports, — an issue we dealt with last week — and of course it would also encompass the extension of the DART to Greystones which is, after all, the number one priority.
Although absent yesterday, the Tánaiste is in the House at the moment so, hopefully, as this is the first chance we have had to talk to him we will be able to ask him to come back to the House to——
He is behind you.
Exactly. That is, if we get a chance to talk to him. I would like to put on the record again, as I did yesterday, the fact that since he took up the position he has been a regular visitor to this House. We have had several debates on the issue that Senators are asking to be debated again. I have no doubt that when we get a chance to discuss the matter with the Tánaiste we will arrange something that will be suitable to the House. On the issue of debates related to drug abuse, as of yesterday I have written to the Minister for Justice to ask her to come to the House and debate the issue. On the farm retirement scheme, the Senator could raise the matter on Private Members' time next week if he so wishes. On Aer Lingus and transport, I mentioned yesterday that as the operational programmes come through under the national plan we should have a chance to discuss the various related issues. Senator Howard's query will be dealt with by the office. Other issues raised today will be dealt with at another time.
The Minister of State will now make a statement on Item 2, and the Tánaiste will speak on Item 1.
Order of Business agreed to.