The Order of Business is Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Second Stage of No. 1 will be taken today and contributions of spokespersons will be 20 minutes and those of other Senators ten minutes. Senators may share time. Committee Stage of No. 2 will be resumed and business will be interrupted from 5.30 p.m. to 6 p.m. Private Members' business, No. 3, Second Stage of the Registration of Lobbyists Bill, 1999, will be taken from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. I suggest that the proposer will have ten minutes to reply instead of the usual five minutes. Business will resume thereafter if not previously concluded.
Order of Business.
I agree to the proposals for No. 1 and No. 3. Will No. 2, the Copyright and Related Rights Bill, 1999, conclude this evening or will business be interrupted at some point? Does the Leader propose, as is rumoured, to sit until all 355 sections are completed on Committee Stage? It would help the House to know the Leader's intentions? Perhaps he could tell us now, and I will take up the point from there.
If No. 2 is not concluded, we will recess at 2 a.m.
The Order of Business is opposed. I object strongly to this way of doing business. Yesterday the Seanad did what it does best – the careful detailed scrutiny of a Bill which, to many people, is seriously flawed. Contributions came from all sides of the House as all Senators who participated sought in a careful way to improve the legislation. It is what we do best, what we are paid to do and is one of the reasons which justifies the existence of the Seanad. I see no reason to sit until 2 a.m. and to work in a tired fashion to rush through a Bill.
What is the urgency to have this Bill completed before the end of this session? I have been told there is a European imperative and that the Minister needs the Bill to save face outside the House, but that is nonsense. Will the Leader respect the co-operation he has received from this side of the House? We are taking all Stages of a Bill today, as we did yesterday. It is not an approach we like but we appreciate the time of the year involved and we co-operated fully.
We ask that the House be allowed to take the Copyright and Related Matters Bill, 1999, in a calm and reasoned way. If we do not finish Committee Stage before the recess, so be it. We can come back to complete it so that it can go to the Dáil at an early stage in the next session.
I remind the House that we were asked to take all Stages of the Qualifications (Education and Training) Bill, 1999, which we did. We were told it was a matter of considerable urgency but eight weeks elapsed before Second Stage of that Bill was taken in the Dáil. That Bill has not completed its passage through the Dáil and it is hard to see the urgency the officials told us about eight or ten weeks ago. Will the Leader respect the views of Members on all sides that we take this Bill in a calm way, that we do our job well and help to make what is a flawed but important Bill a better one? That is why I ask the Leader to terminate business at 10 p.m.
I move the following amendment to the Order of Business: "That business be interrupted at 10 p.m."
I second Senator Manning's proposal. I see no reason to try to railroad this Bill through the House. It is not as if the other House is waiting for it. The Bill will not be dealt with in the Dáil before the recess, therefore there is no reason we should rush it through. It would be counterproductive to try to get it out of the way. There are 355 sections in the Bill and, with the exception of the Finance Bill, it is the largest and most comprehensive Bill being dealt with this session. It is not acceptable to try to rush it through by sitting until 2 a.m. because at that stage people will have concentration lapses. It would be appropriate to take this Bill until 10 o'clock tonight and reassess the situation at that stage. It will be possible to deal with the Bill at another time. This House will meet again next week but the other House will not meet next week. This means the Bill cannot be dealt with in that House this session. If we do not finish the Bill before the recess, we can return to it. I support Senator Manning's proposal to conclude business by 10 o'clock tonight. I hope the Leader will agree to the proposal in the interests of a co-operative approach to the Bill.
I wish to raise the issue of the group from the Council for Independent Living who are protesting outside the gates. This is a group of well disposed, well intentioned, gainfully employed people who will not be able to get to their places of work or study nor will they be able to improve or develop themselves if they no longer receive support for the transport system which was in place. I urge the Leader to inform the appropriate Minister, on behalf of this House, that it is a disgrace and a poor reflection on all of us that the most forward looking and progressive economy in Europe cannot help people with mobility problems to get to their place of work or place of study.
I draw Senator O'Toole's attention to the fact that Senator Ridge sought to raise this subject on the Adjournment. Regrettably, I was unable to take it because the Minister for Health and Children has no responsibility in the matter.
I accept the Cathaoirleach's ruling. I attempted yesterday to find out which of three Ministers has responsibility in this regard because someone is responsible. There was a long debate on the disabilities Bill in this House when the question of access to transport was debated for hours. The matter was raised by Senator Kett previously. As a wealthy country, we have a responsibility to ensure that people with mobility problems can live their lives independently.
I support Senator Manning's call for more reasonable treatment of the Copyright and Related Rights Bill. I see no reason this Bill should be rushed through the House with such urgency. As this House will be sitting tomorrow, Friday and next week, there is plenty of time for a more dispassionate and generous debate than pushing it through in the early hours of tomorrow morning. The Bill cannot be dealt with in the other House until the autumn, given that it is going into recess at the end of this week. This is extremely important legislation. It has 355 sections and has been dealt with and teased out carefully by our spokespersons in the Seanad. Therefore, it is right and proper that we give it a fair hearing. The Labour Group and I support Senator Manning's proposal.
I wish to mention the protest outside the Houses by the Council for Independent Living. These people have stated they will remain there until the matter is rectified. The relevant Minister should come to this House and explain why a commitment made by a previous Minister has been reneged on. Some £350,000 of core annual funding has now ceased to be paid to the centre with the result that more than 300 people are now denied mobility. This raises an issue we have been trying to tease out for some time, that is, what is happening to the enormous surplus of funds being garnered by this economy? It is a two-tiered society when weak and vulnerable people find themselves deprived of funding committed to them a couple of years ago when the economy was not so strong. These people are now virtually imprisoned because they are significantly disabled and have considerable difficulties. I ask the Leader to call on the relevant Minister to come to this House at the earliest opportunity to debate the issue.
I also wish to raise the issue of duty free sales. I ask once again for a debate on the matter because today is the last day duty free sales will operate. It is well over half a century since the concept, which is now being ended, was introduced in Shannon. The abolition of duty free facilities will have considerable implications, particularly for regional airports such as Knock, Waterford, Galway and Sligo. It would be valuable to have a debate in this House on the implications of its abolition for the economy and for employment.
I support what has been said by Senators Manning, O'Toole and Costello on the Order of Business. A matter which has not been taken into account when considering sitting until 2 a.m. or 2.30 a.m. is how we treat the staff of this House.
Hear, hear.
I would be interested to know what arrangements the Leader has made to get staff home and back tomorrow morning. We need a dose of reality as to how we conduct our business. We have at times sat late when emergency legislation was being debated but this is not now the case. Many staff attached to this House will be badly affected if they must work until 2 a.m. or 3 a.m. tomorrow. We must be sensible when conducting business. Many officials yesterday barely got time for a cup of tea. Both sides have co-operated well over a number of years and I hope this will continue.
I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on the amendment to the Order of Business. While I respect the valid arguments put forward last night, we should focus our minds and listen to the Minister's response. While much of the legislation proposes putting directives in place, there are matters we cannot change. There was a debate for an hour and a half on changing a 50 year duration to a 70 year duration when those proposing the change realised this could not take place. I ask Opposition Members to look at how they are putting forward their arguments. While I do not take away from the validity of the arguments, I believe we spent an hour and a half going round in circles. If we are here until 1 a.m. tomorrow, the people to blame will be those who are making the arguments. I ask that we continue to make our points as briefly and succinctly as possible. Then we will be able to do the job we are here to do, that is, pass the best legislation we can and use all our intelligence to do so. Many Senators made very valuable contributions last night and will do so again this evening. I suggest that to leave this hanging over us until next September is merely postponing the inevitable. We need to pass this Bill in the best way possible. Spending six or seven hours on an amendment is a waste of time.
The arrogance of the Senator's remarks does little justice to this House. Is she suggesting we rubber stamp the amendments and not debate them?
(Interruptions).
There is an arrogance in the suggestion that this is how we should proceed.
Order, please.
I resent the suggestion that the House should rubber stamp a Government Bill. We are here to tease out the issues. There is as much intelligence on these benches as on the other side of the House or in the Department. It is an appalling suggestion. We should stick to our democratic mandate.
(Interruptions).
Order please. I call Senator Norris on the Order of Business.
It is arrogance to think we are simply rubber stamping it.
Senator Norris without interruption.
I am sorry a Chathaoirligh.
I dare say when Senator Cox has been a little longer in the House she will understand its workings better.
I resent that statement.
Good, I am delighted she does.
There is resentment here too.
She will probably come to realise that we are part of the democratic functioning of the State. She may well regard it as unnecessary to have debate and wonder why we bother since we must bow to the inevitable. That is the tenor of her argument. If previous Governments had not been lax in their responsibilities, we would have been able to do something about the issue of 70 years as opposed to 50 years, which is extremely important. If we can persuade the Minister of State to re-open this issue at European level, we will have done a good day's work.
Meeting until 2 a.m. is complete and utter nonsense. Might it have something to do with prominent Members on the Government side having interests in the music industry? They have shown a considerable appetite for passing this legislation so they can wave it among their colleagues in that industry. It is also very unfair on the staff of the House. I support Senator Manning's amendment.
Members of the Centre for Independent Living are outside the gates of Leinster House today, as they were yesterday. They are vulnerable. We have not lived up to our promises on transport. There are items on the Order Paper regarding the transport system. There is no doubt that transport in this city is clogging up. The Minister for Public Enterprise, Deputy O'Rourke, is a good Minister. Will the Leader ask her to come to the House to update us on the Luas? This House ensured one axis would go underground. The second axis should also go underground. The traffic problems in Dublin need consideration, particularly CIE's operations and the way it parks its buses. Securicor seem exempt from every regulation given how its vehicles park.
What is the progress, if any, on the Universities Bill? It is important to Trinity College Dublin.
It is late in the day to debate duty free. We have already debated it. There is something ludicrous about European directives bringing about the brutal harmonisation which we encountered in last night's debate and the abolition of duty free, while at the same time the levels of duty have not been harmonised. Each European country has different levels of duty and prices. The abolition of duty free at the moment is a nonsense but there is nothing we can do about it.
I join Senators Manning, O'Toole, Costello, Cosgrave and Norris in opposing the Order of Business on No. 2, the Copyright and Related Rights Bill, 1999. The House debated the Bill for four hours last week and dealt with sections 1 to 23. Yesterday, in an eight or nine hour sitting, we moved from section 23 to section 49, with which we are not finished. I mean no disrespect to the Minister of State. He was kind and gracious in offering to obtain legal explanations and there is a raft of advice to come from the Attorney General's office. He will not have that this week or next week. The Dáil will rise this week and the legislation cannot pass.
I plead with the Leader and Senators opposite. We are in broad agreement on the general thrust of the Bill but, by its very nature, it does not lend itself to an easy passage. It needs much teasing out. I ask the Leader to be kind and gracious, as the Minister of State is trying to be. I say that in fairness to the Minister of State, although he did not accept a single amendment yesterday and the Opposition called neither a quorum nor a division. We are entering into an arrangement which will seriously fray nerves and tempers.
The point regarding the staff has been adequately made. We should be concerned for the Minister of State's advisers who spent nine or ten hours here yesterday. A half hour break for tea for people who the Leader proposes will be in the House from early afternoon until 2 a.m. is absolutely ridiculous. I plead with the Leader to have more sense. He is capable of having more sense than he has shown in his proposal on the Order of Business today.
A Chathaoirligh, I apologise for not being present when you rejected my Adjournment matter.
I did not reject it, I disallowed it.
I take that back, a Chathaoirligh, and apologise for not being here when you had to inform me that, unfortunately, it was rejected. Apropos that matter I ask the Leader for a debate in view of our sense of outrage at what is happening outside the gates of Leinster House. Yesterday, I had inquiries made for me; four Departments were contacted and none could give an answer. That is not right.
I wrote to the Taoiseach two months ago asking that the Minister of State with responsibility for people with disabilities be given more powers. He assured me the Minister's office had full and adequate powers. However, that is not the case because this morning we realised that she – she is a very good Minister of State – is trying to cobble together something. I ask the Leader for an emergency debate to consider whether full powers can be allocated, including the right to grant emergency funding, to the Minister of State with responsibility for disability, so we never again have this disgrace to society and the Government. These people should never have to do this again.
A Chathaoirligh, I realise this matter has nothing to do with you. If I, as a public representative, cannot get an answer from four Departments, what chance have the people outside the gates?
Mr. Ryan
The Solicitors (Amendment) Bill, 1999, the Radiological Protection (Amendment) Bill, 1998, the Qualifications (Education and Training) Bill, 1999, the Minerals Development Bill, 1999, and the Education (Welfare) Bill, 1999, are on the Dáil Order Paper having been passed expeditiously and efficiently by this House. We are not delaying legislation. We are doing our job. The Leader of the House accused me in the ante chamber last night of deliberately delaying the House. I did not do so, although I could if I wanted to. I know every procedural method of slowing down business and keeping things going and I have done it in my time. I am an experienced Member of this House and this is not what is happening with the Copyright and Related Rights Bill, 1999.
It is becoming apparent that the Bill is full of flaws. It is well-intentioned, well-focused and important, but full of flaws, and the Minister of State will not or is not allowed engage with the flaws. Last night at 9.45 p.m. neither he nor his officials could explain a phrase in the Bill. We suspended for 15 minutes and when we returned, the Minister of State gave what he accepted was an inadequate explanation. However, he would not accept that the solution was to agree to insert a definition on Report Stage. He said he would have to take legal advice.
I cannot speak for other Members but I do not believe in long speeches on Committee Stage. However, when a Member of the House asks a Minister a question, he or she is entitled to an answer. If one must ask the question five or six times, one does so.
I do not know what agenda is pushing the Leader to keep us here until 2 a.m. I fully subscribe to the view that people's families count, and that includes the families of Members as well as staff. I do not know what obsession is driving us to stay until 2 a.m. but it is wrong, mistaken and is souring the atmosphere of this House unnecessarily. It is unworthy of the Leader who usually attempts to work by agreement. It is time he returned to his usual style. I fully support Senator Manning's proposal to amend the Order of Business.
I support Senator Ridge and Members on all sides of the House who are concerned about the transport issue which involves the Centre for Independent Living. Such an issue should not be used as a political football. We should not have to discuss it in this or the Lower House. We need an immediate resolution to the problem. I will be guided by you, a Chathaoirligh, and the Leader as to what we can constructively do to bring it to a successful conclusion. Perhaps the Leader could state categorically which Minister has responsibility for the transport problem. An essential service for our disabled should not be an issue to squabble and fight about on the Order of Business or at any other stage. We need an indication how the problem will be resolved today.
Senators Manning, O'Toole, Costello, Coghlan and Ryan expressed concern about the House sitting until 2 a.m. We, on this side of the House, do not wish to sit until 2 a.m. but the instruction we have from the Government is that this Bill must be put through one of the Parliaments and an undertaking was given by a Minister in relation to it.
Why?
We have only one Parliament.
The Leader should be allowed to reply without interruption.
I am responding to the Order of Business and I wish to be heard. I will endeavour to see what can be done by agreement and I will come back to the leaders during the day to see if we can agree a time to finish. I do not want anyone to be here until that hour in the morning and I will do everything I can to see if we can conclude business between 10 p.m. and 12 midnight, if possible.
Senators O'Toole, Costello, Norris, Ridge and Avril Doyle expressed their great concern about the people outside the gates of Leinster House yesterday and today. I have spoken to these people, some of whom are friends. I fully agree with the sentiments expressed this morning. I understand that £105,000 is needed immediately. I will pass on the views of the Senators to the Minister after the Order of Business.
Which Minister?
Senators Costello and Norris mentioned duty free sales. People can now purchase goods when leaving or entering this country which they could not do before. People travelling to non-EU destinations, such as America and Australia, can still buy duty free. The other advantage for people travelling within the EU is that they can purchase as much as they like provided it is for their own private use. I know many people feel sentimental about losing duty free.
Senator Norris mentioned people in the music industry. They must work until 2 a.m. or 3 a.m. to make a living. Other people are more fortunate to be able to get a good start in life with a good education and a cushy job. I would like to think this Chamber, which is a vocational Chamber, represented all the people and not just those with a happy existence to which they have become accustomed.
Senator Norris mentioned transport. I will ask the Minister to come into the House for a debate on Luas, transport problems in general and the transport plan for the nation for the next ten years. I understand there is good news on the way particularly for people travelling from Dublin to the west and other places where hundreds of millions of pounds will be spent on transport. This is a sign of our efficient and effective Government.
Duty free in Athlone.
Amendment put.
Tá
|
Burke, Paddy.Caffrey, Ernie.Coghlan, Paul.Coogan, Fintan.Costello, Joe.Cregan, Denis (Dino).Doyle, Avril.Doyle, Joe.Gallagher, Pat. |
Manning, Maurice.McDonagh, Jarlath.Norris, David.O'Dowd, Fergus.O'Toole, Joe.Ridge, Thérèse.Ross, Shane.Ryan, Brendan.Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine. |
Níl
|
Bohan, Eddie.Bonner, Enda.Callanan, Peter.Cassidy, Donie.Chambers, Frank.Cox, Margaret.Cregan, JohnDardis, John.Farrell, Willie.Finneran, Michael.Fitzgerald, Liam.Fitzgerald, Tom.Gibbons, Jim. |
Glynn, Camillus.Kett, Tony.Kiely, Daniel.Kiely, Rory.Lanigan, Mick.Leonard, Ann.Lydon, Don.Mooney, Paschal.Moylan, Pat.O'Brien, Francis.Ó Murchú, Labhrás.Ormonde, Ann.Walsh, Jim. |
Tellers: Tá, Senators Burke and Ridge; Níl, Senators T. Fitzgerald and Gibbons.
Amendment declared lost.
Order of Business agreed to.