The Order of Business is No. 1, Ordnance Survey Ireland Bill, 2001 – Order for Second Stage and Second Stage, with the contributions of spokespersons not to exceed 15 minutes, and of all other Senators not to exceed ten minutes, and on which Senators may share time; No. 2, statements on the implications for tourism of foot and mouth disease, not to be taken before 4 p.m., with the contributions of spokespersons not to exceed 15 minutes, and of all other Senators not to exceed ten minutes.
Order of Business.
I want to raise an issue on the Order of Business which is relevant because it will determine the way we do our business for the rest of this session. When I became a Member of this House in 1981, I was told by the then Fianna Fáil Whip, Senator Willie Ryan, that the House ran on the principles of consultation and co-operation. I have always worked on that basis, and in those days there used to be Whips' meetings which would sort out the business for the coming week. They are now just a memory.
Last week I was told by the Leader that this week we would be taking Second Stage of the Waste Management Bill, and I agreed to that. On Thursday, when the Whip arrived, I was told we were taking all Stages on Friday. This was done without consultation, without the agreement of the Opposition or advance notice. It was simply sent to me by the Leader of the House as a fait accompli. I wrote to the Leader and expressed my concerns. I copied my letter to the leaders of the other groups. Since then, I have not received even an acknowledgement of that letter from the Leader.
I may not be much but I am Leader of the Opposition here and when I write to the Leader of the House on a matter which concerns me and all the Opposition groups, I have a right to expect at least the courtesy of an acknowledgement or a reply. I believe I have been treated in a contemptuous way by the Leader of the House on this matter. It is not the first time he showed contempt for institutions in the past week.
I could say more but I ask the Leader if there is any good reason we are being asked to steamroll an important and contentious Bill through the House this week. There is no crisis. We can take Committee Stage next Tuesday and Report Stage next Wednesday. There is no difficulty in doing that but why are we being asked to take both Stages on Friday when there is clearly no emergency? This Bill took three years to prepare and those of us in one of the Houses of the Oireachtas are being asked to rubber-stamp it through in two days. Everyone here knows that when Committee and Report Stages are taken on the same day, there is no possibility of amendments being accepted.
The Leader can either consult with the leaders of the Opposition later and agree to take this business into next week, when he will have full co-operation from this side of the House, or he can agree to go ahead with what are steamrolling tactics. If he does that, however, the principle of co-operation will be withdrawn from this side of the House.
I agree with the sentiments of Senator Manning. I have written in the same terms, on behalf of our group, to the Leader of the House in the sense that this is highly controversial legislation and people should have the time to deal with it. We know difficult decisions will have to be taken. There are different views on all sides of the House and it would be wrong and irresponsible to push this Bill through the House. There should be as much agreement as possible on the Bill. There will be enough differences on its content without having a row about the procedure or the process through which we put it through the House. I want to make it clear to the Leader that this process should be done by agreement. We should have had some interaction as to how the Bill would be taken.
On a completely different issue, I want to ask the Leader about his intention in regard to the Nice treaty. The Government has set 31 May as a probable date for the referenda. We are aware that, constitutionally, the legislation has to be passed a month before that date, but is there a case for having a debate on the White Paper prior to publication of the heads of the Bill or the actual Bill? As the Government, the Opposition and most commentators are concerned about the lack of debate in this area, it might be helpful if we debated the White Paper before we debate the merits or demerits of the Bill.
We raised here last week the issue of the impact of President Bush's attitude to the Kyoto agreement. This week we see resonances of the Cold War coming to our screens with the current issue in China. Our Government, as a member of the Security Council, should speak both to the Chinese and the US ambassadors and tell them that this does not look well for the developed world. It is the kind of operation we could do without. People can spy on each other without flying over each other's air space. There is nothing private in this globe. This is simply two turkey cocks facing up to each other and we should ensure that we do not give it support.
I agree with what has been said by Senators Manning and O'Toole in relation to the Order of Business. I am thankful to the Leader of the House for bringing the Waste Management Bill into this House. The taking of Committee and Report Stages of an important Bill at the same time is becoming a crisis. To take all Stages in a couple of days in the same week is unsatisfactory. We have highlighted this before. If there is some pressing reason to get legislation through, I would welcome consultation on this. I have not the slightest problem sitting on Friday, Saturday or Sunday. The problem lies in our not having time to put forward proper amendments, reflect on them and deal with a matter that has been raised week after week in this House – the way in which we deal with waste management in our society. I urge the Leader of the House to defer the remaining Stages of the Bill from Friday until the following week.
I welcome the fact that Mary Robinson, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, has agreed to change her mind and stay on for at least another 12 months. After she announced her decision not to remain for a second term, it emerged that she has had a budget of only $20 million out of a full budget of $1 billion and that most of her staff are part-time. Therefore, the stance that she has taken is well worthwhile. I hope the result of that stance is that we will get a far more firm approach to human rights from both the UN and the states with which she has dealt.
I ask for a another debate on the drugs issue because it is a long time since we have had one. The recent seizure of £2 million worth of heroin has highlighted the fact that there is a huge trade in this country and that a link-up between British and Irish drug-smuggling gangs is being developed. I compliment the Garda on their success, but given that there are approximately 8,000 to 10,000 heroin addicts on the streets of Dublin alone, we need to look at the broader issues as well, the question of rehabilitation and the manner in which we deal with addicts in our society.
I support what Senator Manning has said on the ordering of business for this week. I thought we had all agreed and that the Leader had informed us that, except in a case of extreme urgency, and we have had a few of those, we would not have a situation such as has been proposed for this week.
If you bear with me for one moment, Senator.
I am always prepared to bear with the Chair.
Today is Tuesday. The Order of Business that has been proposed by the Leader is for today. I did allow considerable latitude to Senator Manning and the leaders of the groups to make some general points in relation to the Order of Business, but I cannot allow other Senators to discuss the business of Thursday or Friday. The Order of Business for Thursday will be dealt with on Thursday morning and so on. I ask the Senator to refrain from dealing with business which may or may not arise later in the week.
I certainly will. I fully support what has been said and I will leave it at that.
I note that in his report on the planning inquiry to the council and the Minister, the Kerry county manager has pointed out that, at national level, the regulations regarding the identification and registration of agents and also those who prepare drawings and planning applications need to be tightened up. Furthermore, he has pointed out that section 135 of the new Planning and Development Act requires the council to implement a full code of practice. Equally, he has stated that this section of the Act has not been brought into operation. Despite this lack, the manager has drawn up his own code for Kerry. Is it the Government's intention to have uniformity throughout the country regarding this important matter, or will the Kerry code be specific to the county? In the light of the further reports that are due to flow in from various councils throughout the country over the next 48 hours or so, what will the position be?
We urgently need to hear from the Government how section 135 of the Act is intended to operate. I was inclined to assume that it should be applied on an even-handed basis throughout the country. I look forward to the Leader's words of advice and wisdom in respect of this matter.
I am sure the House welcomes the announcement from the UN High Commissioner, Mrs. Robinson, that she intends to renew her mandate. I raise this issue in the context of putting a question to the Leader and, perhaps, to the Cathaoirleach as Chairman of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. A delegation from the sub-committee on human rights, which included Senator Norris and me, had the privilege to meet Mrs. Robinson on a visit to Geneva last week. I do not intend to suggest that Senator Norris and I were responsible for ensuring that she will either seek a second term or serve an extended first term, but the views we expressed were in keeping with comments made by others. She admitted that she had been overwhelmed by the response and reaction of those attending the Commission on Human Rights currently in train in Geneva.
In light of this and of the high esteem in which Mrs. Robinson is held, under the procedures adopted by the House relating to access to non- Members, which allowed President Santer to come before us, I formally propose that consideration be given to inviting Commissioner Robinson to address the House on the issue of human rights.
There is a convention that if a Senator wishes to have a particular individual invited to the House, he or she should submit that proposal or suggestion in writing to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. There is a convention that we do not discuss in the House who may or may not be invited to address it.
I thank the Cathaoirleach for his ruling. In the interests of clarification, is he stating, therefore, that no Member has the right to enter this Chamber and expound on the reason that a particular individual should be invited to address the House?
That is correct.
I am grateful to the Cathaoirleach for clarifying the convention.
I agree with Senator Manning's comments on the way the business of the House is being conducted. It is remarkable that he made such a trenchant contribution because he is a man of moderation, balance and good sense and it takes a great deal for him to be provoked into making a statement of the kind he made. I know the Leader is fully conscious of the dignity of the House and wishes to maintain it and I am sure the actions that have been taken were not deliberate. I serve as Whip for the Independent group and I knew nothing about the proposal to take all Stages of the Bill this week, which is quite extraordinary.
We are not discussing that matter because it does not arise on today's Order of Business.
The Leader should continue to be conscious of the vulnerability of the Seanad, particularly in light of the contempt with which various Governments have treated it. One classic example of this is that when a Bill is passed by the Dáil, it is virtually impossible, on many occasions, to have amendments to it accepted in this House because it does not suit the Government to have the legislation recommitted to the Dáil. In my opinion, that is treating the Upper House with a certain amount of contempt. However, I will leave the matter aside in deference to the Cathaoirleach's ruling.
It is astonishing that more of a fuss has not been made of President Bush's withdrawal from the Kyoto agreement. This action represents a potential disaster for the entire planet. However, we should not really be surprised because when President Bush was elected I stated that it would be a case of "back to the future with Bush". The Cold War is recommencing, treaties are being welshed on and it is clear that he is a prisoner of industrial interests. America has only 5% of the world's population but it produces 25% of its atmospheric pollution and it is now abrogating a treaty which was freely entered into.
The Senator is stretching my patience.
Surely not. I wish to request a debate on the Kyoto agreement.
I will not trespass further on the Cathaoirleach's goodwill with regard to the question of inviting Mrs. Robinson to address the House. However, I am sure this matter may be considered in the proper way. I share the sentiments of those who are glad she was persuaded to reconsider her position. As an astute tactician, she may well have gained some advantage, in a negotiating sense, from what she did. When a delegation from this House visited her office and had a very useful exchange of views, we observed her busy schedule which involves meetings from early morning with Foreign Ministers, Prime Ministers and Presidents and subsequently chairing meetings in the afternoon. Her work is accomplished with rather limited staff resources. We can be proud that she has had strong, committed support from the Irish Government in her work. I ask the Leader to convey to the appropriate Ministers the continuing support of the House for Mrs. Robinson and for her important work.
As Leader of the House, I express our sincere sympathy, on behalf of all Senators, to the Tánaiste, Deputy Harney, on the death of her father, Michael. I also extend our sympathy to the Tánaiste's mother, Mrs. Sarah Harney, and her brothers and sister, on their sad bereavement.
On the Order of Business, Senators Manning, O'Toole, Costello, Coghlan and Norris expressed their views on the business to come before the House during the coming weeks. I assure Senator Manning and the House that no disrespect was intended. A meeting of party leaders and Whips can be held later this evening, perhaps after 6.30 p.m. when I have been briefed by the Government Chief Whip, in relation to how our options can be reviewed.
This is a very good week for the House, with two further Bills being initiated here. The Waste Management Bill is of major importance, dealing with a matter which poses a great challenge to local authorities and to the public, and I have no intention of it being steamrolled through the House. When a Bill is initiated in the House in a particular week, the remaining Stages should normally be taken in the following week. However, as former Leaders of the House, Senators Manning and Lanigan will be aware that when the Government calls for a Bill to be dealt with in the House, the order of the day has to be suspended to accommodate that.
There are four Bills coming to the House in relation to proposed referenda. Because of time constraints, I do not expect the referenda to proceed on 31 May. I understand that the date will be very early in June. Accordingly, we as party Whips and leaders will need to consider how we can facilitate that legislation within the time available. It is my very earnest wish that consultation and negotiation will be the order of the day at all times in determining how our legislative work is arranged. I take the criticism in the manner in which it was expressed, in terms of upholding the status and dignity of the House. Before this Government took office in 1997, there was no period when so much legislation was initiated in the Seanad.
Senators Costello, Mooney and Norris welcomed the announcement by our former President, Mrs. Robinson, of her intention to continue for a further term as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. I join in those sentiments and will pass on the good wishes of the House.
Senator Costello called for a debate on the drugs issue, for which I will allocate time. I congratulate those responsible for the drug seizure which was reported today.
Order of Business agreed to.