Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 2 Mar 1995

Vol. 142 No. 4

Order of Business.

Mr. Manning

It is proposed to take Items 9 and 10; Item 9 until 1 o'clock, with the same time arrangements as were agreed yesterday at the beginning of that debate; Item 10 will commence at 2 o'clock until 4 o'clock; there will be a sos.

Yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition courteously indicated that he would be seeking to have all Stages of Item 9 debated today. He may have seen sense in the meantime but if he is making that proposal, I will have to oppose it for a number of reasons. First, the business was agreed last week. I said last week on the floor of the House that we would debate this on Wednesday evening and Thursday morning. That was agreed and arrangements were made accordingly and I do not think we should break agreements easily. Second, it is a bad principle that all Stages of a Bill be taken on the same day. The Members opposite would be vociferous in opposing any attempt by the Government to put all Stages of a Bill through on the same day, so I oppose that.

I propose to meet the Opposition half-way on this issue. I accepted the urgency of the Bill and have made more accommodation than is normal in dealing with Private Members' Bills. I suggest we meet next Wednesday at 10.30 a.m. The only other business that day, apart from the motion setting up the new committees, which need not take long, and the Independent Group's Private Members' time, will be the completion of the Arterial Drainage (Amendment) Bill. The Whips could meet to see if arrangements could be worked out. I make that proposal to meet the Opposition's sense of urgency.

Mr. Wright

I welcome the principle that no Bill will be passed in one day. I am sure the Leader would, in future, want me to accept that no Bill will be brought to the House to be passed in one day.

He has recognised the urgency of this problem by the fact that he provided two weeks to debate this issue. We, and those who represent the areas affected, are extremely keen that this Bill will be dealt with. Can I take it that the Leader agrees the Bill will be passed next Wednesday?

Mr. Manning

For clarification, subject to agreement between the Whips, the Bill will be completed next Wednesday.

Mr. Wright

It has been said to me that we have had five Ministers so far looking into the waters, paddling, rowing, rudderless, some people would say — I would not say that but——

Mr. Farrelly

On a point of order, with respects, there have been 15 Ministers and this has been going on for ten years.

Mr. Belton

It has been going on 70 years.

Mr. Wright

Today we will have statements on the reform of the Seanad. I know the Leader is committed to reform of the House, as I was as Leader. One of the reforms we spoke about over the years was of having topical debates on Thursday, making the House more relevent to the needs of everyday politics. Surely, flexibility would be part of that. That is why we, in so far as this problem is so urgent at the moment, felt that it should be dealt with as soon as possible. However, in the light of what the Leader said, I agree that the Bill will be completed next Wednesday.

Mr. O'Toole

I am much relieved to hear that because I was concerned that the House would be pulling itself apart. I have been pushing hard to get agreement that the Bill would be concluded next Wednesday. I support the Bill. Traditionally Independent Members have been opposed to putting Bills through in one day except in the most urgent cases. The Whips can agree to conclude the Bill next Wednesday, whether it passes or not. To enable the Government to give a fair response and in light of the Whips' agreement of last week that the Bill would be dealt with yesterday and today, I am delighted the matter can be handled in this way.

I am happy with the business as ordered. Having agreed last week how to tackle the matter, I felt trying to push the Bill through today would cause problems. The Leader has shown he is taking Seanad reform seriously, first by having an early debate on this matter and second by ensuring a Private Members' Bill can be dealt with and concluded in this House next Wednesday.

Finally, on a point of information, it was the founder of the main party on the other side of the House who proposed draining the Shannon over 70 years ago. Had he done so, we would not have this problem today.

Mr. Neville

By way of clarification, it was the founder of the main Opposition party.

Mr. O'Toole

Sorry, I am not used to Fine Gael being on the other side.

Mr. Lydon

That is a temporary little arrangement.

Mr. R. Kiely

Senator O'Toole is complaining to the wrong people.

An Cathaoirleach

The bottom line is that the Shannon has not been drained.

Mr. Dardis

Senator O'Toole obviously has a problem with where he is located. It is desirable that what the Whips agree should be the business of the House. Irrespective of that it is the House which decides these matters. Having said that, it would be reasonable in the circumstances to conclude this matter next week and make adequate time available for that purpose. The amendment to the Order of Business, which was not moved, did not state the Bill would be finished today. From that viewpoint it would be possible to support the amendment. The business itself is quite in order. I will leave it to my colleague, Senator Honan, to speak about the Bill our party has before the House.

Mr. Finneran

I again ask the Leader for a full debate on the VHI. I raised this matter yesterday and he suggested it was suitable for an Adjournment debate. However, there is a broader dimension to the VHI question. Given the proposed increase in subscription charges, the decreased tax concession and the new regulations which will be introduced governing other insurance companies, we should debate the issue. I ask the Leader to afford that opportunity to the House.

Ms Honan

I noted the Leader's reply yesterday to the query on Item 13, the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Bill, 1995. I am surprised details of the proposed legislation are not available, because according to newspaper reports a Bill has been prepared. If we have not seen the Government Bill by next week, I give notice that we will proceed with our Bill and expect the same consideration to be given to it as to the Fianna Fáil Bill.

Mr. Norris

I second what my colleague, Senator Honan, has said. I will firmly support her in moving this Bill next week if matters have not advanced.

I welcome the placing on the Order Paper of Messages from the Dáil on the establishment of committees. We on this side of the House particularly appreciate the increase in Seanad representation on the new Foreign Affairs Committee from five Senators, which was extremely small and injurious to the reputation of the House, to double that, ten Senators.

Mr. Fahey

I welcome the agreement on the procedures pertaining to the Arterial Drainage Bill, 1995. Rather than vote down the Bill, which is what will inevitably happen, I ask the Leader in an all party spirit——

Mr. Farrelly

There is great spirit in the House at the moment.

Mr. Fahey

——to appeal to the Minister that the Bill be taken in conjunction with the Government Bill, which, it was indicated last night, would not be published for at least three months. This is an ideal opportunity to give practical effect to the reform we want to see in the Houses of the Oireachtas.

From what the Minister said, it is clear the bureaucracy will take over, irrespective of who is in Government. The Minister's Bill has to be circulated to Government Departments before it can be introduced. There is a serious crisis in my area and this is an ideal opportunity for the Oireachtas to tackle existing problems and, in all-party spirit of co-operation, to amend the Bill which has been already published, if amendments are necessary. The Bill should be passed by the House. By all means that should be done by allowing the Government to adopt and amend it. It is urgent that we act now.

Mr. Farrelly

I ask the Leader to confirm how many Bills on arterial drainage were introduced in this House in the last ten years and how many Ministers dealt with them. Will he also confirm that the proposer of the current Bill was one of those Ministers and that when one looked for information from his Department it was like trying to pull teeth?

Mr. Cassidy

Senator Farrelly is digging further down.

Mr. R. Kiely

That is to be expected.

Mr. Farrelly

Will the Senators remind me of the person's name?

Mr. Roche

Senator Farrelly is a voice in the wilderness.

Mr. Daly

We could have done without the last intervention. In relation to Item 9, the Minister indicated last night that in the legislation he was preparing he did not see the necessity for provisions for compensation. Without having a discussion on the matter at this time, I draw the Leader's attention to the Minister's statement. First, he said he would oppose the Bill; second, he said there was no necessity for provisions for compensation. That will be a major flaw in his legislation.

I reluctantly accept we will conclude the Bill on Wednesday, but I re-emphasise the urgency of the position. People have had to leave their homes to stay in rented accommodation.

Mr. Farrelly

It is going on for 17 years. The Senator is suffering from loss of memory.

Mr. Daly

Remedial action must be taken quickly. The indication given last night was unsatisfactory and most disappointing.

Professor Lee

I support Senator Fahey's proposal, which is responsible and constructive. It ought to become a precedent for the way we conduct business in this House.

Mr. Roche

I support Senator Fahey's proposal also. If Government is not prepared, willing, able or capable, because of bureaucratic considerations, to produce a Bill on arterial drainage, as Senator Lee said it would be constructive for us as legislators to turn our minds to this end without party bias. The current Bill could be improved by the input of Members from all sides of the House and could be the framework on which Government could build. This is a helpful proposition and in the context of reform of both Houses this would be a constructive move forward. I ask the Leader to turn his mind to that matter between now and next Wednesday.

Mr. Manning

I thank the Leader of the Opposition for agreeing to the proposals for the conduct of business today and next week.

Senator Finneran raised the VHI once again. If he feels an Adjournment debate would not adequately meet his requirements, I believe the wider context of insurance is an issue this House could debate, as is banking. Along with the Leaders and Whips of the other groups, I will draw up a list of such topics to debate over the coming weeks. Banking has been mentioned on a number of occasions and I agree with the Senator that there is concern about insurance. Perhaps such a debate will be possible soon.

With regard to Senator Honan's query, the Government Bill was published this morning so it should be available shortly. If she would like further briefing on it to enable her to make up her mind on what she will do I can arrange it today. I accept the points made by Senator Fahey, Senator Daly, Senator Lee and Senator Roche and the spirit in which they were made. I will do my best to see if there is some means of incorporating them.

Other points that have been made anticipate the debate that is about to take place.

Order of Business agreed to.