I will order extra business in anticipation of a report which is due in the Library this morning. Today's Order of Business is Item 1, which will be taken between now and 1.30 p.m.; Items 2 and 3, all Stages, between 1.30 p.m. and 5.30 p.m. and Item 4, between 5.30 p.m. and 6.30 p.m. I suggest that from 6.30 p.m. to 8 p.m. we take statements on the Attorney General's report. I suggest that there be time limits on certain aspects of the Order of Business: 30 minutes for each speaker on Items 2 and 3, 15 minutes thereafter and ten minutes per speaker on the statements. I understand the Taoiseach will contribute to the statements, either at the start or the conclusion.
Order of Business.
I appreciate that the Leader has recognised the importance and gravity of the report which I am told is about to be made available by the Attorney General on matters relating to his office and which are central to the present crisis of confidence in the acting Government. I am glad he is making time available for this today. I was going to propose that we take Item 26 in our name which deals with the same subject, but we will need time to read the report. I am happy that today's business is being reordered so that the most important question facing the public can be discussed where it should be discussed, that is, in the Houses of Parliament. I also ask the Leader of the House to ensure that copies of this report are made available as quickly as possible so that all Members will have time to study it in detail.
Under Standing Orders, it is possible for us, through the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, to invite the Attorney General to address the House. The Attorney General, Mr. Eoghan Fitzsimons, has dealt with the matters expeditiously and thoroughly during the past week. His integrity and competence are universally accepted in the short time he has been in office. It would be appropriate and useful if the Committee on Procedure and Privileges could meet immediately after the Order of Business to discuss if the Attorney General, the one person whose credibility is not in question, could be invited to the House this evening to report to the Members on his findings. It would be a big step towards establishing full openness and transparency. It is within our powers, under reviewed Standing Orders, to invite a person of distinction to address the House and to ask him to take questions. The sooner the matters in the Attorney General's Office are in the open, the better for everyone in this House, in politics and in this country. What better place to do that than in this House?
I ask the Leader to take on board my suggestions and to convene a meeting of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges so that a formal decision may be made to invite the Attorney General to come before the House this evening. He has nothing to fear or hide and we have a great deal to learn from what he has to tell us.
It should be put on the record of the House that it is regrettable and contemptible that a report, which has once again been selectively leaked to the press, should be unavailable to elected public representatives. This morning I contacted the Attorney General's Office, the Taoiseach's Office, the Library of the House and various other groups and I was told that this report, which is mentioned in all today's newspapers, will not be available to public representatives until 1 o'clock. I also contacted the Cathaoirleach's Office earlier this morning with a view to having the business of the House suspended to discuss this matter.
I will deal with that.
I accept the Leader's proposal to meet my demands in this regard because we need to air this issue. I also recognise that by putting forward this proposal I am reacting to media reports. We have been treated with contempt. This is no way to run a democracy. I want to hear someone trying to defend this attempt to keep us in the dark. This lack of information does not translate into transparency, and that is unacceptable to the population. I would like to know what is going on. I look forward to the Taoiseach's explanation this evening and the sooner that is done the better.
The Leader's proposals are reasonable in the circumstances because it is essential that we discuss this matter. I would have preferred a debate but, at least, the Leader has provided time for statements. Matters of such gravity are increasingly being discussed in the newspapers, on television, on radio and in every forum except in the Parliament. On several occasions I expressed the view that a marked lack of democracy was creeping into both Houses of the Oireachtas. That is a matter of concern. When we debated the Taoiseach's resignation, I expressed the hope that it would bring us back to true accountability and democracy, which is at the core of this request to the Leader. The overworked word "accountability" has been devalued by the way it has been used during the past couple of weeks.
As to the time arrangements the Leader has proposed, may I point out to him that if the Taoiseach speaks for 30 minutes, there would only be an hour remaining and only six Members could speak. It is essential that all shades of opinion in this House be reflected in that debate and from that point of view, the proposed arrangement is not satisfactory. If the Progressive Democrats were not able to contribute to that debate by reason of the time arrangements, I would regard it as a serious matter.
It is also not acceptable that we should be asked to take all Stages of Item 2, the Regional Technical Colleges Bill, today given that there is considerable controversy involved. In the Dáil two weeks ago, an attempt was made to take all Stages at the one time without debate. Thankfully, it was not successful. It is wrong that all Stages should be taken here today, especially given that Report Stage was only taken in the Dáil yesterday. I do not see how we can bring forward any amendments that can be of any value when Report Stage was taken yesterday in the Dáil and we are being asked to debate all Stages today. I ask the Leader to reconsider his proposal in respect of Item 2.
We welcome the opportunity to debate the Attorney General's report in this House this evening. As Senator Manning said, it is appropriate that it is discussed in a House of the Oireachtas. I also welcome the fact that the report has been produced so speedily and efficiently. It is in the public interest that we have information as soon as possible as to what exactly did occur over recent months in the Office of the Attorney General. I also support the call that we should have copies of the report as soon as possible so that we will have an opportunity and the time needed to consider it.
As to Senator Manning's suggestion about inviting the Attorney General to the House, I do not know if that is covered under the legislation to which he referred but I would certainly be in favour of investigating it.
The time allotted for the discussion of this report — an hour and a half — is not adequate. I want to contribute to the debate. I understand this report was discussed by the Cabinet yesterday. If that is the case, why is the Taoiseach's Office saying that the Cabinet members want to peruse it further? Is it the case, as was previously mentioned here, that, like the beef tribunal, the selective points the Fianna Fáil Party want the public to know and think about will be leaked?
That is rubbish and nonsense.
You will all have an opportunity to speak this evening, so make it brief.
This is the old Stalinist technique; trial by accusation.
If the Labour Party thinks there is any change in the Fianna Fáil political ethos——
We have an ethos.
——the public is saying "Fool me once, shame on you but fool me twice, shame on me."
(Interruptions.)
I am delighted time has been provided to discuss the report from the Office of the Attorney General. For Senator Manning to suggest that people of stature could come into the Seanad is a misrepresentation of what happened at the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. We were not discussing civil servants or members from the Office of the Attorney General but people of stature.
The Attorney General is a person of stature.
If we go down the road of inviting Attorney General——
That will be discussed at the meeting, Senator Lanigan.
I absolutely reject the suggestion that the Attorney General should be brought into this House to discuss these matters.
We will discuss this matter at the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and I am sure you will make your point there.
He should not be brought into the House.
I welcome the fact that the report will be discussed. It was not available until today. So what? We are discussing it today. The matter is open and will be discussed here——
It was discussed last night and this morning in the newspapers.
I do not edit the newspapers and I do not leak information to them.
I again appeal to the Members not to make statements or speeches. You will have the opportunity to speak on this matter at 6.30 p.m.
The current Attorney General, Mr. Eoghan Fitzsimons, is a man of distinction and enormous integrity and he has established a very fine reputation across this country in a very short time.
Senator Manning proposed this morning that the Committee on Procedure and Privileges would meet after the Order of Business and that the Attorney General would be invited here this evening to take part in the discussion and to answer questions. I second that proposal because it is very sound and sensible, particularly when "accountability" is the current buzzword. If we are to have a real debate or discussion in this House this evening and if we are to have openness and accountability in Government, surely there will not be any difficulty in bringing in the Attorney General. I believe he would be very readily available if the Committee on Procedure and Privileges take that decision. I ask you, Sir, to join with Senator Manning in coming to that conclusion at your meeting of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
If it were possible for that procedure to be used for the Attorney General to come into the House I would have no objection. The sooner the truth is out the better. The sooner politics in this country is back on a sound footing the better.
I want to make a point, however. I will not come into this House and be lectured by Senator Sherlock of all people on the issue of democracy. He belongs to a party which only recently left its balaclavas behind.
(Interruptions.)
He belongs to a party which was involved with the IRA. He belongs to a party which attacked the institutions of this State. He belongs to a party which carried out bank robberies, murders and things like that.
You rat. We are forcing you into a position where we are allowed——
(Interruptions.)
Senator Roche, Senator Sherlock, resume your seats.
You hypocrite. How dare you.
Senator Roche, Senator Sherlock, resume your seats.
(Interruptions.)
You unprincipled and unpardonable hypocrite. How dare you lecture me. Your party and the leadership of the IRA were inextricably intertwined.
Senator Roche and Senator Sherlock, will you please resume your seats? I do not want to adjourn the House. Senator Roche, do you have a question for the Leader of the House on the Order of Business?
Thank you, a Chathaoirligh. I apologise, Sir, for my language, but I will not be lectured about democracy by someone who is that close to criminality.
Senator Roche is the lowest form of political animal I have met in this House.
On the Order of Business, I also agree with the suggestion that was made here that it will be important for all parties and for people from all parties to contribute to the fullest extent in the debate. I ask the Leader of the House to consider the point made by Senator Dardis in the event of the debate being somewhat truncated.
I agree with Senator Dardis' point about the regional technical college legislation. A man who is not in this House or the other House has been subject to the most unprincipled allegations over the last few weeks; he has been tried by allegation. It will not be possible in the time available to discuss all the issues arising from the Letterkenny regional technical college issue here. If we cannot discuss it in the context of this Bill, I ask that we would lay time aside at an early date for the full issue to be discussed because matters of justice are concerned here. We cannot and should not put a time limit on that.
On a point of order, I want to know for the record whether what I consider to be a totally unparliamentary remark which has been made about Senator Sherlock's party has been withdrawn. I want to know precisely what is acceptable in this House and what is not.
I understood that Senator Roche had apologised.
Let me be clear. I apologised to you, Sir, for my language. I do not apologise for anything I said about the Democratic Left, The Workers' Party or Sinn Fein the Workers Party. They were criminals, we know they were criminals. That is a matter of public record.
Please, you are making a bad situation worse.
The Senator said I belonged to a party that had only left the balaclavas behind them.
Senator Sherlock——
The Senator's party was printing its own money a few short years ago.
Senator Roche, in the interests of harmony and peace I ask you to withdraw that comment. I would like if you would.
Sir, I cannot withdraw the truth. It has been well published that that gentleman's party were closely associated with Sinn Fein the Workers' Party and closely associated with the Official IRA. I cannot withdraw what I believe to be the truth.
This type of comment is not appropriate. I ask you, as a personal favour, to withdraw that comment.
I am reluctant to say anything that might upset you, a Chathaoirligh.
Thank you.
Has the remark been withdrawn?
"Reluctantly", he said but yes.
Do not misquote me, Sir. I said reluctantly to you but I will not withdraw any accusation I made.
This reminds me of a cock fight, which is illegal in this country.
I rather enjoyed that little spat; it showed a bit of vigour and life, but it also showed the shades of the background of the Fianna Fáil Party that it gloated recently that it was only a certain distance from the tradition of violence in this country.
Do you have a query for the Leader of the House?
I support what Senator Manning and Senator O'Toole said about the necessity for a debate, which I am glad the Leader of the House has granted. I strongly support Senator Manning's useful suggestion that the Attorney General should be invited to address the House. I am glad Senator Roche supported this because it shows this is not just a partisan issue or anti-Fianna Fáil. I would consider that a majority on the Government side would agree with this, not to score points——
The Senator is speaking at length.
I am making a point in support of——
Do you have a question for the Leader of the House?
Will the Leader reply to the suggestion that the Attorney General should attend this Chamber? A point he should consider when making up his mind is that on several occasions legal advice was sought by both this and other House on behalf of the people and was ignored or partially suppressed. This is an opportunity to get the information directly from the horse's mouth.
I have no control over media leaks or otherwise. This House has always gone its own way. I thank those who agreed with the proposal for statements at 6.30 p.m. to 8 p.m. I want to assure everyone in the House that all parties will have the opportunity to contribute. If Taoiseach speaks for a certain length and that disrupts the agreed times, the House will make arrangements to ensure that all parties contribute. As regards copies of the report, I will pass on the requests but it is not within my remit to ensure there will be copies for everyone at 1 p.m.
I will explore the suggestion made by Senator Manning to invite the Attorney General. If the Cathaoirleach wishes to call a meeting of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, that is his prerogative. As regards Items 2 and 3, there is more than enough time provided for the debate and for all Stages to be taken today. If time is needed to prepare amendments, that could be arranged this afternoon.
I request that you call a meeting of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
I was about to rule on that. Immediately after the Order of Business may not be convenient for me, so I suggest we meet at 1.30 p.m. or 2 p.m.
At 2 o'clock.
The Committee on Procedure and Privileges will meet at 2 p.m. and I hope all Members will be present. Is that agreed? Agreed.
What is the agenda?
The agenda will be circulated prior to the meeting. Obviously, it will deal with the matter raised on the Order of Business.
Order of Business agreed to.