It is proposed to take Committee and Final Stages of item 1, the Social Welfare Bill, 1995, and item 2 today.
Order of Business.
The Order of Business as announced is agreed to. In the light of last week's High Court decision, perhaps the Leader would find time for the House to discuss its concerns in relation to Sellafield and THORP some time after Easter. The Leader is aware of the desire of the House to discuss the banking system and banks. It is appropriate to raise this today given the statement in AIB's annual report in relation to salaries and wages. It is difficult for customers and small business people to understand the wages being paid to the five executives. Not too many people get a lottery cheque each week but they seem to have arranged that. It would be appropriate to debate the banking system after Easter.
The White Paper on education will be published in the next fortnight or three weeks. I would like a commitment that we will debate the White Paper, which has political and educational implications at every level, in the first week of May because this House could do it more justice than most places.
A matter I raised last week and the week before, but to which I did not get a reply, relates to the publication of the report of the expert committee on hepatitis C by the Minister for Health. The Minister has had the report for almost two months. I met with some members of Positive Action last week and they are concerned about the delay in publishing the report. I ask the Leader if it would be possible for the Minister for Health to come to the House to debate issues in the health area, particularly in relation to the VHI. the difficulty with the independent hospitals and GPs soon after Easter.
Could a debate be initiated on the aftermath of the peace process in Northern Ireland? There is much talk about gardaí being removed from the Border counties. In Donegal we have special concerns because of the recent drugs finds off the Cork coast and in Dublin port last week. The northwest coastline is very vulnerable and we are concerned that gardaí should remain in the county at current strength. Can we have a debate on this shortly?
I support Senator O'Toole's request for a discussion on the White Paper on education. One aspect of it which is of great concern to schools is the new leaving certificate applied programme. Principals of various schools are concerned about this new pilot scheme. They are trying to organise their timetables but, as yet, they do not know when it will come on stream, what is happening or what kind of schools will be selected. That programme should come on stream very quickly.
I want to refer to a report in one of the Sunday newspapers which I felt had not been properly researched and reflected badly on the former Government Whip in this House. We are aware of the commitment given by the Government Whip over the last two years. The Committee on Procedure and Privileges should put this matter on the agenda because such reports should be balanced and should take into consideration Members, such as the Leader and the Whips, who are given the responsibility of running the House. The public must be concerned by such a report which reflects badly on Members. Since that paper is published once a week, would it be appropriate that the wages of the Journalist concerned be divided by 52 as he attempted to do with the sitting days of Seanad Éireann?
We should have a debate on Foreign Affairs in view of what is happening in Burundi. The situation there is on the boil and we are getting conflicting reports from various aid organisations and the Government out there, as well as the UN and the EU. We also need an urgent debate on what is happening in Bosnia-Herzegovina where a war of attrition is going on. Europe is doing absolutely nothing, apart from making a statement on the odd occasion which achieves nothing. A couple of weeks ago when Kuwait was threatened with another invasion, the United Nations was able to get 50,000 troops together within 12 hours to make certain that invasion did not take place. The United Nations and the EU have done nothing about Rwanda, Burundi or the central European states. We must have an urgent debate on those matters.
I also want to mention the banks. Before Christmas I requested a debate on the banks. Companies, such as AIB or any other bank, should not tell us how to manage our businesses and then go over the top with the salaries they give themselves. This is a matter of concern. However, on the same day they gave concessions to farmers in terms of over-production of milk and said they would give them preferential treatment — 2.5 per cent less than AA rates.
Senator Lanigan, you are making a speech. You have asked for a debate on the banks.
Can the Leader arrange such a debate? I suggest to AIB and the other banks that the proper interest rate for all customers should be 2.5 per cent less than the AA preferential rate.
I concur with all the remarks made by Senator Finneran with possibly one exception. I would not dignify the article by referring it to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. This House, of all the institutions of State, has consistently invited the press to observe and report on our deliberations and I am sure that one of the organisations that did not take up that invitation was the Sunday Tribune. Yet it published an article which is a most disgraceful piece of journalism in so far that it is so inaccurate as to be laughable. The photograph of Tom Raftery, a distinguished former Member of this House, was published and it was said that he is a sitting Member. This shows how ill-researched that article was. Fulsome tribute was paid to the former Leader of the House and the Chief Whip for the way they kept this House running; it is no easy job. The press and public ought to know the difficulties that Leaders and Chief Whips have trying to ensure that this House gets proper attention, irrespective of the Government in office. This article is disgraceful. I would concur with every word of Senator Finneran, but I would not dignify it by reporting it to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. It is a silly piece of journalism and the journalists involved might grow up at some stage.
I support Senator Wright's statements on the banks, with this difference. There have been many discussions in this House on a number of issues but unless we have a structured and focused discussion on the banking system, nothing concrete will happen. I strongly suggest that the Leader convene a meeting of the Whips, decide on a debate on banking and structure it so that each Senator would make their contribution in a focused way. When we are dealing with an institution that touches everybody's life, for good or for ill, a focused debate is needed. I ask the Leader to convene such a meeting of the Whips.
I concur with what was said about the article in the Sunday Tribune but it should not surprise anybody. When I was involved in the committee of the Peace Train some years ago, a leading article in that newspaper chided me for daring to say I was an elected public representative and it analysed the methods of election to the Seanad. The whole article was entirely inaccurate. I sent a letter in reply, faxed it, had it delivered by courier and hand delivered it to the newspaper. Whatever about Vincent Browne's much vaunted right of reply, not a titter of what I had to say — because it made mincemeat out of him intellectually — ever appeared in the paper. I cannot recommend that Senator Wright, or anybody else, use the right of reply in the Sunday Tribune because I gather that it is operated at the discretion of its editor.
I would be very happy to support a call for a debate on the banking system; it is long overdue. As far as I am concerned, banks are simply shops that sell money and they should be regulated in the same way and not be treated with any greater respect that any other shop or group of shopkeepers. It is very offensive that senior bank executives should pay themselves as an increase multiples of what most ordinary decent working people can expect for an annual income.
Is it possible to have a debate on the consequences for this country of the latest debacle in the beef industry, namely, the fine of £75 million because of the activities in our beef industry in previous times? This seems to be another horrible example of punishing the victim. Why should the Irish taxpayer have to pay for the wrongdoings of the beef industry, particularly when, I understand, that one of the companies principally involved is currently suing the State for £200 million? We are being got at in every possible way. As public representatives, we have a responsibility to act as a watchdog in the interests of the public. I do not see why the taxpayer should be made the victim in this case and I hope there can be a debate on this matter.
I want to raise three specific items, one of which concerns banking. I support the suggestions made by previous Senators, particularly Senator Magner, for the need to have a structured debate on banking. I would like to discuss bank charges, making them transparent and itemising them on accounts. Many people who have bank accounts are being ripped off in that regard.
I ask the Leader of the House to possibly make time to discuss the Western European Union, our preparation for the 1996 intergovernmental conference and the long term implications for Ireland's neutrality. A debate on that set of issues in the Seanad would be ideal as a way of opening the wider debate among the public. Preparations for the intergovernmental conference are well under way in the Department of Foreign Affairs. The Government has decided on certain lines of action. A public debate would be important because we will end up with a referendum where people will take extreme views which could be damaging and inimical to the interests of the State.
I would also like a debate, as early as possible after we resume, on the implications of what I regard as an extraordinary Government decision on the collection of service charges. Service charges are a form of taxation.
This matter was mentioned last week.
It was but I ask that we examine and discuss its implications, particularly in so far as it relates to the discretionary funding of local authorities. If the Leader wanted to extend it to a general debate on the financing of local authorities, I do not think there would be any objection from any side of the House.
I support the call for a debate on banking and bank charges. The people concerned have given themselves massive increases while the majority of those who work for them are full-time temporaries. Focusing the debate will give real meaning to what Members say and I welcome that. I also support Senator Norris's call for a debate on the proposed beef fines. I do not believe anybody in this House, or, indeed, the majority of people in this country, wants the taxpayer to be levied with a bill in which they did not have any act or part. Having listened to the comments locally over the last few days, I believe it would be horrendous if this was the case. I ask the Leader to arrange a debate here when we resume because it would be worthwhile and we would get the views of many Members.
I ask the Leader of the House if it would be possible for the Minister for Enterprise and Employment to make a statement here on the future prospects of Shannon Aerospace. The Leader will be aware that Shannon Aerospace is a recently established company and over 700 jobs are now at risk. This was a joint venture between Lufthansa, Swiss Air and Guinness Peat Aviation in which Shannon Free Airport Development Company invested in excess of £20 million. It now looks as if the future of the company is threatened and there is a likelihood that jobs will be lost there. There is an urgency about this as decisions will be made before the end of this month. May we have an opportunity to hear the views of the Minister and discuss this serious problem? If the company closes down, a large number of jobs will be lost and this will have a major impact on the local area.
Every now and then there are urgent calls for a debate on currency. This usually occurs when there is a crisis in the currency market. We should have a debate on currency when there is not a crisis. It appears that there is not a crisis at the moment — fingers crossed. Some weeks ago, there were calls for such a debate and I suggested that was the wrong time. I now suggest that the Leader of the House consider the possibility of a debate on currency when there is not a crisis and when there is less danger to the volatility of the currency from things that may be said here.
I was delighted to hear Senator Norris refer to bankers as just shopkeepers. I am sure he meant it as a compliment. We are due to discuss the Consumer Credit Bill in this House shortly. That is when we will have the opportunity to speak about banking. If the Bill is not discussed in the immediate future, we could have an opportunity to speak about banking on a different occasion. To the best of my knowledge, the Consumer Credit Bill will provide the perfect opportunity to discuss many issues, including bank charges and how they will be examined.
I ask the Leader if it would be possible to have a debate on Burundi in the near future. Over 400 people were massacred there in the last few days. Tanzania has closed its borders having already accepted over 700,000 refugees. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister of State are anxious about this matter, but we should arrange a debate on how best we could be of assistance, whether at UN or governmental level.
I am pleased about the call for a debate on banking. I agree with Senator Magner that a structured debate should be arranged by the Whips. I do not want a debate where Senators make contributions off the top of their heads. Time and care are needed when preparing for this debate. There are many problems with the banks with regard to charges, etc. However, it is important that we try to be constructive and it would be most desirable to hold the debate as soon as possible.
I understand the Lower House put a number of good reforms in place recently. There was also a good debate in this House on reform of the Seanad. In view of impending difficulties, there should be a debate on the Presidency, not on the President herself. This is a democracy and we should be free to debate this matter in view of the various implications of the expanding role of the Presidency.
The President is totally independent of the Houses of the Oireachtas.
Can we not talk about the Presidency?
It is not a subject for debate in this House.
How can the Presidency be debated?
Hire a hall.
I have ruled that it is not a subject for debate in this House.
How do we talk about the Presidency?
We do not; end of story.
Is this a monarchy or a democracy?
I may be out of order but I thank Senators for their comments on the article in the Sunday Tribune in so far as they referred to me. I resent the implication in the article that I was indifferent or negligent in relation to my Seanad duties. I intend to respond to it but, in view of Senator Norris's experience, I may by wasting my time. Nevertheless, I will have a go.
In relation to Senator Wright's point, there will be a debate on Sellafield soon after Easter.
A number of Senators asked for a debate on banking. Eyebrows were raised when the rate of emolument to top people in AIB was announced. I take Senator Magner's and Senator Roche's point that this debate should be structured. I will call a meeting of the leaders of the different groups, or their nominees, before the end of this week to arrange a structure for the debate.
With regard to the matter raised by Senator O'Toole, I have a commitment from the Minister for Education that as soon as the White Paper is published, she will begin an open and comprehensive debate in the House; I expect that will be in the first week of May.
I spoke to the Minister for Health about the matter raised by Senator Honan. He will come into the House shortly after Easter but there are legal difficulties which he must sort out first. However, he is aware of the concern expressed by the Senator. He will come into the House to make a comprehensive statement on this matter and, I hope, other health issues soon after Easter.
Senator Maloney raised Border issues. This ties in with a point made by a number of Senators last week about cross-Border initiatives. I spoke to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and he will come into the House after Easter to discuss this and related issues.
Senator Ormonde made a point about education which I have already covered. Senator Finneran raised the issue of the article in the newspaper last Sunday. I agree that it was an extraordinarily badly researched and ill-informed article which showed no understanding at all of the practical workings of the House. It was unfair in particular to the then Government Chief Whip. Government Leader and Leas-Chathaoirleach. I, in common with Senator Norris, would not dignify it by referring it to Committee on Procedure and Privileges. The journalist did not do his reputation any good with an article which was superficial and uninformed.
Senator Lanigan, Senator Enright and Senator Roche mentioned foreign affairs. I said on a number of occasions that it is not possible to have a series of separate debates on this issue. I propose to call together the ten Seanad members of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs to see if we can set up a foreign affairs forum which would meet here at regular intervals to discuss a range of foreign affairs issues in a way that does not replicate what the joint committee is doing but which gives Members an opportunity to raise matters of concern. I will call a meeting shortly of the ten members of the joint committee to ensure we do not replicate what they are doing.
Senator Norris and Senator Farrelly raised the issue of the beef fines. We would all like to discuss this matter and have further information on it. I am not sure how best to do that but I will try to find a means to explore that issue.
Senator Roche raised the question of service charges. It is probably not best to discuss them in isolation but a discussion of local government finance is of concern to all and we may have that after Easter.
I share Senator Daly's sense of urgency about Shannon Aerospace and I will contact the Minister after the Order of Business to see if we can arrange a discussion. I suspect negotiations are at a delicate stage at present but I will inform the Senator of the outcome.
Senator Lydon raised the issue of the Presidency and it was ruled out of order. Senators are aware there will be a major review of the Constitution soon and it will first involve experts and then Members of the Oireachtas. It will allow Members to put forward their views about the functioning of and possible changes in the Presidency.
I hope it will not be removing God like last time.
Senator Lydon also raised the question of reform of the Seanad. The debate on that matter finished last week and this week I will be calling a meeting of the leaders of all the groups to work out the reforms we can implement as soon as possible.
Order of Business agreed to.