Today's business is item 1, to conclude. It will start after the Order of Business. There will be no sos and the Bill will continue until it concludes.
Order of Business.
As progress is made during the day I presume the Whips can adjust the time arrangements.
I understand there is a possibility of legislation coming before the House which has not yet been initiated. Will the Leader outline the position in that regard in terms of next week? I understand it is part of the Government's crime package.
I wish to register my strong objection to the reports in today's newspapers about the Government decision to establish an all-party committee to deal with the report on the Constitution. I do not know where the country is headed, but there is room for an independent voice regarding aspects of the work of the State. It is unacceptable that the report will be dealt with by parties and that Independent Members of either House will be excluded. The lack of representation from the Seanad on the committee is particularly unacceptable, given that there is significant focus on it.
The House has not been appraised in terms of addressing its problems, such as the point that the representational and election systems perhaps require change. Members are prepared to address such issues. Will the Leader outline his views on the level of consultation with him and others about the establishment of the all-party group? Did he have an input? Was the House asked for an input to the membership of the committee? Is it acceptable that Independents are not allowed a voice on the group considering the report, which is a crucial document?
Despite the fact that the report was negative about the Seanad, it would be wrong for Members to be defensive in their responses to it. We should examine it realistically and respond to it practically. It is important that all voices are heard. Surely parties have nothing to worry about regarding the voice of Independents on these issues. Their input is as important as any other. I am unhappy about this matter and I ask the Leader to clarify his role in it. What structures led to such a decision?
Regarding Senator O'Toole's point, is it intended to debate the conclusions of the constitutional review group on the Seanad? I note the group stated serious consideration might have to be given to the abolition of the House. My party's views on that matter are known, but as long as it remains a democratic institution of the State, we will, as democrats, participate fully. I hope we will be participating for some years to come and, like the Labour Party, I am sure we will be pragmatic about the matter. The report states the Seanad does not appear to satisfy the criteria for a relevant, effective and representative second House. This aspect must be discussed in the House.
My second point relates to the proposal of a group to review the Garda. I understand a group is already examining the force. The Garda Commissioner recommended yesterday that an independent group should review the force, but I understand the Government's proposal is that it should be a departmental group. How many groups will examine the Garda? Is a review group required to examine the review groups which are reviewing the Garda? Are there any proposals for an independent rather than a departmental review group to investigate the Garda Síochána?
The Cathaoirleach will remember I raised this matter on the Order of Business yesterday. It concerns the serious situation in Bord na Móna. I ask the Leader to allow a debate as a result of a Government decision this morning at the Joint Committee on Commercial State-sponsored Bodies where public debate on Bord na Móna was voted down. It is a deliberate attempt to muzzle debate on Bord na Móna. That committee met at 9 a.m. this morning in private session for three quarters of an hour. Once it went into public session the Government side proposed to block public debate. This is not good enough. It does not conform at all with——
A question on today's Order of Business.
——any type of openness or transparency by the Government on public bodies, especially a company that has been in such trouble for the last 12 weeks. It is quite appalling that the public would not be allowed to discuss a document——
We are not discussing the matter today. If the Senator has a question relevant to today's Order of Business, I ask him to put it to the Leader.
That document was with the committee this morning.
We are not discussing that matter.
The committee was refused the right——
If the Senator has a question to the Leader of the House on today's Order of Business——
I ask the Leader of the House to provide Government time today for a debate on Bord na Móna.
Is the Senator serious about that?
I am quite serious. The time has come for the Seanad to debate the Bord na Móna situation.
The Senator has put his question.
We cannot have a situation where public accountability on Bord na Móna——
Senator Finneran has made his point. Will the Senator resume his seat?
There is a deliberate attempt here——
That matter cannot be discussed. I have ruled it out of order. The Senator has put his question to the Leader of the House, who will deal with it. Will the Senator resume his seat?
It is a joint committee. It has been denied the opportunity of debating the issue and I ask the Leader——
Will the Senator please resume his seat?
I ask the Leader to reconsider his ordering of the business today, in particular the matter of having no sos. It is a good idea if we have even half an hour for ourselves and in particular on the Independent benches. We will have to be here all the time because we have many amendments. Also, it is in deference to the rights of the staff of the House, who would appreciate a sandwich. Half an hour would be reasonable.
I also support Senator O'Toole's comments about the Constitutional Review Committee. We welcome this very serious and important review. The Irish Times has an editorial in which it lists, as one of the most important matters discussed, the role of the Seanad. But when one turns to the report in the newspaper, it says, “The Review Group could not address, in a satisfactory manner, the issues needing to be reviewed given the time available.” Yet the headline says “Sweeping Review of Seanad Urged” and inside it says the Seanad should be more or less abolished. Let us accept a review, but it is an absolute impertinence when the group itself says that they did not have time to examine matters properly and The Irish Times says it is one of the most serious recommendations possible. This House is not consulted. Apparently there are not going to be any Independent Senators——
We are not discussing the matter this morning.
Let us welcome the review but let us make it quite clear that any question of the abolition of the Seanad must be examined under this review. We cannot calmly accept it. In deference to the dignity and honour of this House, it must be emphasised that the committee itself indicated it did not have time to review the Seanad properly. We must make that time available and do so properly.
We are not discussing that matter today.
I raise a matter that I am sure will be of concern to this House because we dealt with the Incitement to Hatred Bill, etc. Last night I was given a document which has been circulated in the Milltown area. It was put through every hall door in a development called Rowan Hall and it is anti-black literature. "Black men are here in Ireland now, the worst of the scum of the British Empire and traitors to their own countries in Africa who cowardly joined the British and enslaved——"
That is not a matter for today's Order of Business.
Unfortunately, it is anonymous but there seems to be a growth in such material——
That is not a matter for today's Order of Business.
——and perhaps something can be done about it.
I ask the Leader of the House for an urgent debate on the situation of people employed in this country on low pay. This must be the only country in the world where £16,000 equals £6,000. A person with four children on a gross income of £16,000 ends up worse off than a person with £6,000 in social welfare benefits because of the add-on situation, where a person on £6,000 gets a subsidy on housing——
I am sure that the Senator could find a more appropriate way of raising that issue.
I ask the Leader for an urgent debate on the question of lower paid people in society.
Tomorrow we will be spending all day on the Metrology Bill. The depth of opinion in Ireland about the Metrology Bill is enormous. People are shouting and roaring from the street that we should bring in the Metrology Bill——
A question relevant to today's Order of Business please.
It is an issue of huge consequence. I ask the Government to have the same impetus in changing the law which will bring criminals before the courts and if they come before the courts, that they will——
We have discussed this on many occasions.
We discussed it last night.
The Senator was not here last night.
I ask the Leader——
A question relevant to today's Order of Business.
Where was the Senator last night?
As a democrat, you are a great example.
Where was the Senator at 8 p.m. last night?
The Senator is the one person who interrupts——
Does the Senator have a question on today's Order of Business?
The Senator is a waste of time.
Does Senator Lanigan have a question relevant to today's Order of Business and can the Senator put the question through the Chair?
I ask the Leader to convey our compliments to the horse riding fraternity in Ireland as they did not turn up at Mr. Gilligan's establishment.
That is not a matter for today's Order of Business either.
I support the other Senators in calling for a debate on the constitutional review, particularly the horrific recommendation that a time be set when the unborn child can be murdered with the State's assent. It is horrific that any civilised nation should even think about this and I hope that we resist it with every fibre of our beings.
I ask the Leader for a full and frank debate on the vocational system before any decision is taken to wind down——
I have promised that three times.
I am sure the Leader does not object to me raising it.
I have promised it.
It is important. I ask, maybe for the fourth time, for a full and honest debate because the vocational committees that have served this country for 60 years are being wound up. We do not know what the reason is. I would like an assurance from the Leader that we will have a debate in the near future.
The Leader has given the Senator that assurance.
I ask the Leader if he agrees that, whatever about the abolition of the Seanad, there is an obvious need for reform in the procedures when the Order of Business can be availed of and abused in the way in which it is.
I agree with the Leader of the Opposition. We will consult during the day as this Bill goes through.
Senator Norris raised the question of a sos. I had deliberately not ordered a sos to facilitate Members, but if the Whips decide after the Order of Business that a half an hour break would be of benefit, we can do that. I had hoped, in the interests of Members who wished to finish at a reasonable hour, that we would go right through. We could review the situation immediately after the Order of Business.
Senator Wright asked me about next week's business. It is proposed to take the Court and Court Officers Bill, 1996, which will appoint three new members of the Judiciary. That will also provide an opportunity for those who did not make it to the debate last night to discuss current relevant matters.
Senator O'Toole raised the question of the review of the Constitution and I welcome this report. I have not had a chance to study it yet, but any report chaired by Dr. Ken Whitaker will be a valuable one. The people involved were public spirited and of high quality and the report will be a seminal document which needs to be studied very carefully and not rushed into. The tone of some of the newspaper reports this morning seems to indicate immediate action on the basis of this report. The whole point of this report is that we have time over the coming months to study it. The fact that the report happens to have been put together by learned people, academics and others does not necessarily mean that it is Holy Grail in itself and that all its recommendations have to be accepted. However, it is important to view it in a very positive way.
A number of specific points were raised. I have not yet read the section on the Seanad; but in anticipation of the report having before it matters dealing with the Seanad, the Committee on Procedure and Privileges set up a small subcommittee some time ago, of which I am chairman, to look at ways in which we can reform our procedures and also look at the wider role of the Seanad in Irish public life. Clearly, since, as far as I know, the Members of the Seanad were not consulted by the review group, what we have to say at that forum will be taken into account.
I would like to use this opportunity to initiate a wider debate. There is a very positive and full role for the Seanad. It has made a very important contribution to Irish public life; but, like all major institutions, it needs to take a hard look at itself. We have to welcome open scrutiny wherever it comes from and we have to be prepared for change. In that spirit I welcome the report today, which I want to see fully examined. I think I speak for everybody in this House when I say that we are not afraid to change. However, we want to be consulted and we want to see this House continue its very honourable tradition of playing a very full role in Irish public life.
Hear, hear. The Seanad succeeded in making major changes to the Transport (Dublin Light Rail) (No. 2) Bill which the Dáil failed to make.
I would like to keep this discussion on a serious note. Senator O'Toole raised the question of the non-representation of Independents on the all-party committee. He has made a fair point and I will convey that view. I was not consulted, nor were Members of this House, as to its composition. I am glad that Senator O'Kennedy and Senator Gallagher are members of the committee. There is a case for the inclusion of somebody from the Independent groupings in the House and I will make that point.
Senator Dardis also raised the question of the Seanad and I have already covered most of the points. I do not think we will have a debate next week on this report. We all want to examine it carefully. I would very much welcome a debate on this report over a number of days in the autumn. However, I do not believe that it should simply be left to a small all-party committee. All Members of both Houses have points of view which need to be made and listened to and, after a summer of reflection, we should be able to do that.
Senator Finneran raised the question of Bord na Móna. My understanding is that the Government does not have a majority on the committee in question. I may be wrong, but whatever that committee does is its business. The House will not be having a debate on Bord na Móna today. The Senator can raise the matter next week if he wishes. We have a very important schedule of business for today and I will stick to that. If Senator Lanigan read his whip he would realise that tomorrow most of the day is taken up with the Second Stage of the Borrowing Powers of Certain Bodies Bill, 1996, which has important consequences for some State sector companies. We are also taking Committee Stage of the Metrology Bill, which is also important. It is not a Bill about which people are clamouring but it is important and was broadly welcomed in a good debate here yesterday by Senators from all parties. As I told Senator McGowan, I have already promised on three separate occasions that at a very early stage in the next session there will be a debate on vocational education committees.
Order of Business agreed to.