Order of Business.

Mr. Manning

Before announcing the Order of Business, I want to refer to one or two items of unfinished business from yesterday's Order of Business during which information was requested from me. I can now give Senators that information. Senator Daly asked about the arterial drainage Bill. It will be introduced by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry in two or three months time. It is at an advanced stage of preparation. A request was also made yesterday for a discussion on defence. I made an urgent request to the Minister and he responded favourably. We will, therefore, be able to have a debate on defence matters at a later stage.

I was also asked on the Order of Business yesterday if I could outline the legislation for the rest of this session. I do not have a full list of legislation, but it falls into two categories. Certain Bills are already on the Order Paper, some of which are at Committee Stage in the other House, and they will clearly be modified in accordance with the changed nature of the new Government. These Bills include the Electoral (Amendment) Bill, the Occupiers' Liability Bill, the Stock Exchange Bill, the Refugee Bill, the Consumer Credit Bill, the Casual Trading Bill, the Ethics in Public Office Bill, the Competition (Amendment) Bill and the Family Law Bill. New legislation being introduced this session includes the Civil Legal Aid Bill — to put that scheme on a statutory basis; the Domestic Violence Bill — to extend barring order legislation; the Powers of Attorney Bill; the Privileges and Compellability Bill; the Health (Amendment) Bill; the Transfer of Sentenced Prisoners Bill — which will be given priority as Senator Henry asked; the Package Holidays and Travel Trade Bill — I am happy to offer travel to all members of the Opposition during this session; and the Minerals Development Bill. Those are the main Bills which will be introduced during the next session arising from the discussion yesterday.

Members or their Whips were informed that today we would be taking the motion to allow the President to address the joint Houses. However, that legislation is not ready yet. It was intended to introduce it because we thought the President would be addressing both Houses next Wednesday, but it will probably be next Thursday. The motion will be introduced next Wednesday.

Today's Order of Business is Items 1 and 2. On Second Stage of Item 1, spokespersons will have 25 minutes and other Senators will have 15 minutes. Item 2 will be taken without debate. Business will be interrupted from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. and the Matters on the Adjournment will be taken at the conclusion of business.

Mr. Wright

We will oppose this Bill and the Order of Business today. Yesterday I welcomed the mention of reform in the House. Senator Manning stated that he intends to be — and I have no doubt he will be — part and parcel of improving and reforming the House. On 20 December 1994, the first time he replied as Leader of the House on the Order of Business after asking the House to agree to guillotine the Appropriation Bill, he said this procedure was once-off. I find it ironic that in his first week as Leader of the House we are being asked to agree to guillotine this Bill. We are also opposing the Bill because in our view it is a bad Bill. It is sending out all the wrong signals. For that reason, my party will be opposing the Order of Business.

Mr. O'Toole

I understand there is no amendment to the Order of Business. I am not clear about the opposition to it. Is it being opposed because there is a guillotine? I did not hear the Leader of the House mention a guillotine. I want assurance that anyone who wishes will be able to contribute to it. Since there seems to be confusion about this, I seek clarification because it is important.

Mr. Manning

I will clarify that with your permission, a Chathaoirligh. There is no guillotine, there is not even a curtailment of time. This is an open-ended debate which can continue as long as Senators wish. There is no limit on the length of the debate today.

Mr. Wright

With all due respect, the Leader has asked for a time limit of 15 minutes, with 25 minutes for spokespersons.

Mr. Cosgrave

That is suggested.

Mr. O'Toole

We are conscious of the traditions of the House and do not want to be used as a pawn in games between the two sides. I would oppose a guillotine or any cut back of time and I support any proposal from this side of the House for an extension of speaking time. We should have a clear idea of what we are voting about today.

Mr. Dardis

Item 2 is tantamount to a guillotine. It is felt that this Bill must have speedy passage to be presented to the President. It is not clear why we are taking this legislation today. On several occasions in the last session I spoke about what I regarded as a contempt for parliamentary democracy, when the Executive disposed of matters and we were to assent as rubber stamps. There is evidence of that once again, which is regrettable.

I have a fax dated 25 January 1995 from the Department of Finance, from Deputy Doyle, Minister of State, Department of Finance. What is the statutory basis for that? It now appears that it is decided someone will be a Minister of State. That person does not have the statutory authority to regard herself as such but we are now to assent to that and rubber stamp it.

The legislation which should be before us today should be the Bill on journalistic privilege, mentioned in A Government for Renewal. Today a journalist is confronted with a court case, so that is much more urgent legislation than the Bill before us.

An Cathaoirleach

A question to the Leader, please.

Mr. Dardis

I think you will accept this point is relevant to the Order of Business. I have always regarded the Leader as someone who would have absolute regard for the procedures of Parliament and the authority and standing of this House. However, this shows contempt for the legislative process and has no statutory basis.

Mr. Quinn

I am in a quandary because I do not understand the reason for opposing the Order of Business. I have no difficulty supporting a proposal that the Order of Business be replaced by other business. It did not appear that those who opposed the Order of Business suggested anything to put in its place. If there is no guillotine, the Order of Business as it is should proceed.

Senator Dardis has proposed we should debate a different Bill concerning journalistic privilege. We are not prepared for that. We should accept the Order of Business unless there is a curtailment of anyone's opportunity to speak. The Leader did not seem to place any limitation on us; if there is any danger of that I would object to the Order of Business.

In the past I have opposed the practice of taking all Stages of a Bill on one day because of the opportunity to put amendments on Committee Stage. This is the shortest Bill I have seen since becoming a Member of this House. There can be no opportunity for amendments to it; it will either fall or be accepted. We should debate it today. Everyone should have an opportunity to speak and make a decision having heard all views.

Mr. Mooney

I endorse the thrust of Senator Dardis' argument. Since I came into this House there has been a reluctance about and an opposition to the concept that legislation from the other House should be transformed into law almost overnight through this House. Although as Senator Quinn said it is a short Bill which is not open to amendment, the basis on which the Bill is presented to the House is flawed.

Item 2 mentions Article 25.2.2º of the Constitution. This is a constitutional matter and we should not be expected fully to debate this Bill in this House within hours of it having been passed in the other House. Consequently, with your permission, I propose an amendment to the Order of Business that we take Item 4 as our business today.

An Cathaoirleach

The Leader of the Opposition has indicated he is opposing the Order of Business.

Mr. Mooney

Yes, but I have the right to put forward an amendment.

Mr. Finneran

I ask the Leader to have a debate on amending the Copyright Act. Some time ago we had a Private Members' Motion in this House, lasting over two hours, on this matter of great public concern. The problem has not been resolved although Department officials have worked on it. The time is appropriate for the Minister to bring forward amending legislation, because shopkeepers, publicans and owners of discos face excessive charges without a proper system of appeal. This should not be allowed to continue.

An Cathaoirleach

You are making a speech, Senator. Perhaps you would direct a question to the Leader?

Mr. Finneran

I will make this point and then call on the Leader. No other law allows charges to be imposed without a form of redress or appeal but that is how the Copyright Act, 1963, is implemented. It is long past its sell-by date and we should have amending legislation and I ask the Leader if there are proposals for such legislation.

Mr. Mulcahy

I ask the Leader if he would make time available and request the Minister of Justice to come to the House to explain the circumstances of the serious robbery at the Brink's Allied warehouse. It is a matter of grave and unsettling concern, especially in Dublin, that the Garda seem to know the identity of criminal gangs operating almost at will in this city.

I was slightly disturbed by the performance on television of the Minister for Justice, because she seemed to indicate that warnings had been given to various security firms that such a raid might be imminent; yet despite such warnings no precipitate, remedial or anticipatory action was taken. The Leader should ask the Minister for Justice to make a statement in this House on the robbery and the operation of criminal gangs in this city.

Mr. R. Kiely

The Order of Business imposes a time limit on speeches on Second Stage. That is the reason for our opposition. If there is no guillotine and no time limits, what time will today's sitting conclude?

An Cathaoirleach

I would love to know that myself.

Mr. Lanigan

Whatever time is on the clock.

Mr. McGowan

I strongly oppose the Order of Business. Everybody in the country knows that the only reason the Seanad is sitting today is to approve the appointment of two Ministers of State. I have read A Government of Renewal carefully. In view of the fact that I was given only six minutes yesterday to discuss the plight of the long term unemployed, it is a little shallow of the Government to use that important subject as padding for a charade to appoint two junior Ministers. The average intelligent person will see that the only jobs——

An Cathaoirleach

Senator McGowan, the content of the legislation is not under discussion during the Order of Business.

Mr. McGowan

I am talking about the Order of Business. I am opposing it on the grounds that the only jobs that this new——

Mr. Farrelly

Speech.

Mr. McGowan

——Administration intends to provide——

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator can make those comments during the debate if it takes place.

Mr. McGowan

——are two jobs for the two junior Ministers to resolve a serious problem within that Administration.

An Cathaoirleach

Senator McGowan, you are going too far. Have you a question for the Leader of the House?

Mr. McGowan

I intend to keep to the Order of Business, with your assistance, a Chathaoirligh.

Mr. Sherlock

The Senator should respect the Chair.

An Cathaoirleach

Senator McGowan, we are trying to decide if we will take this item today.

Mr. McGowan

I strongly oppose it on the grounds that it is totally dishonest and insincere to have a debate on the long term unemployed yesterday when, in fact, the main purpose for our presence here is to appoint——

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator has made a long speech. Please put your question to the Leader.

Mr. McGowan

I will sit down and respect the Chair. However, there is not a child over six years of age who does not know why we are here.

Mrs. McGennis

I support Senator Wright in opposing the Order of Business. I will not make a lengthy speech.

An Cathaoirleach

There are no speeches on the Order of Business, I hope.

Mrs. McGennis

I will desist, despite the fact that some of the demands from the Independents might include cars and the Government jet, so the Government should be aware of that if it is seeking their votes. There is a tie-in as Senator McGowan has said——

Mr. O'Toole

A jet of our own.

Mrs. McGennis

Sorry, a jet of your own. I will act as your negotiator. Senator McGowan is quite right to point out that there is a link between yesterday's debate and what is about to occur today. I have been assured by one of my colleagues, who knows more about these matters than I, that the offshoot of these two ministerial posts will be 68 more jobs for the boys and girls. I oppose all Stages of this Bill being taken today. We need answers and if Second Stage is taken today we will need time to consider our amendments. Contrary to what Senator Quinn said, there is an opportunity to put down amendments — amendments which might secure the support of the Independents. I suggest that Second Stage be taken today and the remaining Stages be dealt with next week.

Mr. Howard

I can assure the Cathaoirleach that I will not make a speech. Having listened to Senator McGowan and Senator Mooney, who represent depressed areas in the west of Ireland, it is highly and unacceptably cynical of them to oppose the most positive political development that has taken place to rejuvenate that area.

Mr. R. Kiely

If he had been given Leas-Cheann Comhairle would there have been such a position? You know well there would not. That is pure hypocrisy.

An Cathaoirleach

Senator Howard without interruption.

(Interruptions.)

An Cathaoirleach

I ask Senator Howard not to invite trouble.

Mr. Howard

I support the point made by Senator Finneran. Time should be provided to initiate legislation dealing with copyright. Could the Leader of House also establish through the Minister for Enterprise and Employment what is the exact legal position of copyright organisations arising from the decision of the Competition Authority last May? A strong body of legal opinion now holds that the legal basis for the protection of copyright royalties is gone out the window as a result of that decision.

Mr. Cassidy

That is not true.

Mr. Roche

I am not sure that I heard Senator Howard correctly.

Mr. Cassidy

It is very hard to hear what Senators are saying.

Mr. Roche

The acoustics are rather bad. If Senator Howard was suggesting that time should be made available to discuss the issue of copyright, I would certainly agree with that.

It appears that there will be no guillotine on the Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) Bill, 1995. I hope there will be no attempt to limit the amount of time for Members' contributions. Almost one quarter of the recent programmes for Government deal with public service reform. This is an important debate which will deal with a wide range of issues. It would be advisable that we have an open ended discussion and that we provide for the possibility of an amendment being put down. I listened to Senator Quinn and there is room for an amendment to be made. Senator Quinn is a business man and we respect his acumen and tremendous capacity in that regard. No business would agree to the addition of 12 per cent more staff — to take an analogy used by Deputy Ahern in the other House last night — without evaluating what is being done by the other 15 members.

An amendment should be put down whereby we should evaluate the work being done by the 15 Ministers of State before this Bill is passed. We are here to guard the public interest. I share Senator Howard's sincere concern about the west, but I note that there is not one word about saving the west in the programme for Government. In fact, if the Leas-Cheann Comhairle position had not posed this difficulty there is no doubt that there would not have been a special position for Deputy Donal Carey, a man well deserving of promotion.

Mr. Belton

Another manifesto.

Mr. Mooney

On a point of order, I wish to clarify to Senator Howard that I probably have more concern for my part of the country in proposing that Item 4, which deals with the International Fund for Ireland, be taken. As he has had Clare tagged on to the west in order to appease people on his side of the House and to justify his——

An Cathaoirleach

That is not a point of order. I call Senator Magner.

Mr. Magner

I wish to point out that while we accept responsibility for the proposal to appoint two Ministers of State, we are not responsible for the robbery committed at the Brinks Allied depot.

Mr. Cassidy

What seems to be at issue between Members of the House is that we are not clear about some matters. This side of the House seeks an open ended debate on Second Stage with no time restrictions. The Leader of the House is proposing such restrictions. That is the difference between us.

Mr. Mullooly

Senator McGowan and Senator Roche have referred to the Government policy document entitled A Government of Renewal. To date I have not received a copy of that document. Will the Leader of the House arrange to have the policy document circulated to Members?

Mr. Manning

Dealing with the substantive issues first, may I advise Senator Finneran that I would be delighted to organise at the earliest possible moment a discussion on copyright. I am not aware of the importance of the issues myself, but if the Senator, and Senator Howard, show such concern they must be of substance. It is the kind of issue which would do well in the House.

Senator Magner has answered Senator Mulcahy, although I will convey the gist of the Senator's maiden contribution——

Mr. Mulcahy

It is not.

Mr. Manning

My apologies. In that case whatever comes after a maiden contribution — the Senator's post-maiden speech. I will convey it to the Minister for Justice and ascertain if something can be organised. I will also have copies of the Government programme circulated to all Members.

Regarding today's business, the time limit is a suggestion. It was made, in my belief, after consultation and agreement with the main Opposition party. If that is not acceptable, there is no intention of imposing a time limit. When I was on the other side of the House we were always flexible about this.

The reason for time limits is to enable Members to speak, to make their case and to enable the business of the House to be undertaken in an orderly way. Senator Quinn has made the point on a number of occasions that if one cannot say something in a specific and reasonable length of time, then one's mind is not very clear on what one wishes to say. I may be misquoting the Senator but it is a viewpoint with which I agree. I never make long speeches.

If the time limit is not agreeable to Members of the Opposition, 25 minutes and 15 minutes, which I consider to be reasonable, then we can discuss with the Whips whether any time limit is acceptable or if Members wish the debate to be open ended and proceed all day.

Mr. Cassidy

It is not open ended.

Mr. Manning

We could arrange with the Whips to discuss this matter after the Order of Business and after the vote has been taken, but if that is not agreeable, it is not agreeable. As to the Bill itself, it is very short. It has just two sections, one of which is the Title. It is a Bill the net content of which is clear. For that reason we are asking that all Stages be taken today, as Committee Stage is essentially similar to Second Stage. I recommend to the House that the Order of Business be as proposed by me.

Question put.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 30; Níl, 26.

Tá

Belton, Louis J.
Burke, Paddy.
Calnan, Michael.
Cashin, Bill.
Cosgrave, Liam.
Cotter, Bill.
Cregan, Denis (Dino).
D'Arcy, Michael.
Doyle, Joe.
Farrelly, John V.
Gallagher, Ann.
O'Toole, Joe.
Quinn, Feargal.
Reynolds, Gerry.
Ross, Shane P.N.
Henry, Mary.
Howard, Michael.
Kelly, Mary.
Lee, Joe.
McDonagh, Jarlath.
Magner, Pat.
Maloney, Sean.
Manning, Maurice.
Naughten, Liam.
Neville, Daniel.
O'Sullivan, Jan.
Sherlock, Joe.
Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
Townsend, Jim.
Wall, Jack.

Níl

Bohan, Eddie.
Byrne, Seán.
Cassidy, Donie.
Daly, Brendan.
Dardis, John.
Fahey, Frank.
Farrell, Willie.
Finneran, Michael.
Fitzgerald, Tom.
Haughey, Edward.
Honan, Cathy.
Kelleher, Billy.
Kiely, Dan.
Kiely, Rory.
Lanigan, Mick.
Lydon, Don.
McGennis, Marian.
McGowan, Paddy.
Mooney, Paschal.
Mulcahy, Michael.
Mullooly, Brian.
O'Brien, Francis.
O'Kennedy, Michael.
Ormonde, Ann.
Roche, Dick.
Wright, G.V.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Cosgrave and Magner; Níl, Senators Fitzgerald and Mooney.

Question declared carried.

Seanad Éireann debate - Thursday, 26 Jan 1995

Order of Business.

Tá

Níl

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 26 Jan 1995