The Order of Business is No. 1, motion re Irish Pound Notes and Coins (Cessation of Legal Tender Status) Order, 2001, to be taken without debate; No. 2, the Euro Changeover (Amounts) Bill, 2001 – all Stages, with Second Stage contributions of spokespersons not to exceed 15 minutes and all other Senators ten minutes and Senators may share time; and No. 3, Health Insurance (Amendment) Bill, 2000 – Second Stage, not to be taken earlier than 4.30 p.m. with the contributions of spokespersons not to exceed 15 minutes and all other Senators ten minutes and Senators may share time.
Order of Business.
The Order of Business is agreed. We agreed to take Report Stage of the Bill on this occasion, but that may not always be the case. I understand there is a possibility that the Leader may introduce Report Stage of a Bill tomorrow and I wish to put him on notice that our generosity today may not extend to tomorrow.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs, following his meetings with EU leaders and Ministers, has said that there will be no change in the wording of the recent amendment. If that is the case, will the Leader ask the Minister to come to the House and explain how he intends to get the public to change its mind on this issue?
I was not aware that No. 1 was to be taken without debate. There may be a reason for that and perhaps the Leader could explain it.
Regarding No. 2, the Independents would not object to taking further Stages of the Bill. However, we will expect flexibility later in the week, particularly in relation to the Mental Health Bill, 1999, and ensuring that the Bill on Thursday does not conclude on Report Stage because many amendments have also been tabled to that legislation.
Regarding the visit of the American President to Europe this week, is it the Government's intention to raise with him his attitude to the death penalty? It would be a very appropriate inquiry and would be very much in line with the views of this House over many years. The Government should ask him to reconsider the position. The use of the death penalty is a global issue. I ask for reassurance from the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Taoiseach that the question of the Kyoto Protocol and the American attitude towards it will be raised with the President, either formally at the Gothenburg meeting this weekend or in some other direct approach.
In terms of the way some senior members of the Government party conducted themselves with regard to the referendum on the Nice treaty, I will hold my comments until the debate on the Euro Changeover Bill later this afternoon.
We should have a full debate in the House on the Nice treaty and the entire mismanagement of the referendum. There was no information, explanation or campaign, and what can be expected but a "No" vote in those circumstances. We as a country had been held up as a model for the applicant countries and we are now regarded as an obstacle.
Senator Costello should not pre-empt the debate which he is seeking. The matter cannot be debated on the Order of Business. I have no objection to a debate once the House agrees, but not on the Order of Business.
I am merely outlining very briefly a couple of reasons the House should have a full debate on the subject. What seems to be emanating from the Government is that there will be no change, no renegotiation. The Government must ask the people why they voted "No". Some form of consultation needs to be established before the Government once again goes back to the people. I ask the Leader to allow a full debate on the Nice treaty while it is still a live issue.
I agree with Senator O'Toole's views on the death penalty. Our concerns about the use of the death penalty should be brought to the attention of the American President. The Minister for Foreign Affairs should be asked to put it on the agenda for this the first visit of President Bush to the European Union. In the recent referendum, the death penalty was deleted from our Constitution and this is the norm in the European Union. If the United States was ever to apply for membership of the European Union, it would be refused because of its breach of fundamental human rights through cruel and inhuman treatment of offenders. The United States should realise that killing its own citizens is not the way to deter others from committing offences.
I ask the Leader to arrange a debate as soon as possible on the National Roads Authority and its dealings with members of the farming community whose lands have been acquired by it. I have been informed that the situation as it obtains is far from satisfactory. Given the difficulties that have obtained in the past couple of years with BSE, foot and mouth disease and other difficulties pertaining to the farming sector, it is important to have this debate as soon as possible and perhaps some positive suggestions could be made in taking corrective action.
I join Senator Costello in calling for a debate on the Nice treaty and I would extend the terms of reference to include a debate on the role of the Referendum Commission. As a consequence of the farcical result from the commission's activities during the referendum campaign, it is time to take a fresh look at the Referendum Commission. Two weeks ago in this House I said that this treaty could be defeated. I said that at best it would be a huge embarrassment and that is how it has turned out. The time has come for a full debate in the House on the Referendum Commission and on the treaty itself, if that is agreed.
I disagree with just about everything that has been said so far.
Surprise, surprise.
I cannot believe the words I am hearing on the Order of Business. Senator Costello wants a consultation with the Irish people on the Nice treaty. That is exactly what we had last week and they gave us a verdict. Apparently I am the only person in the House who likes it. What does that tell us? That tells us we should be looking not at the Nice treaty again but at ourselves. It is quite extraordinary. Every political party said we should vote for the Nice treaty, it is a good thing. The wretched social partners told us to vote for the Nice treaty. The Catholic Church told us to vote for the Nice treaty. The people said "No". What is the reaction? Everybody in the House says "shock, horror", let us go back and ask the people what they think. We know what they think. They think we were wrong.
There is absolutely no point in having another debate in the House on the issue. We had the debate three weeks ago. Now we say we do not like the result, let us have another debate and get another result. It is ludicrous. We have had the referendum. We have had the debate. Let us not have a post mortem, let us forget about it. That is what the referendum was about.
The Senator has made his point.
There is one other issue. I agree very much with what Senators O'Toole, Costello and others have said about the death penalty. It would be appropriate if, when George Bush is in Europe, the strongest possible representations were made by the Irish Government on the death penalty. We in this House who led the fight against the death penalty have a special role to play. Because of the referendum last week – I agree with Senator Costello about this – it would be appropriate if we took some courage and said ‘boo' to the Americans and that we absolutely abhor what they are doing on the death penalty.
Senator Ross has taken the wind out of my sails to a degree because I was rising on the assumption that there was widespread consensus on all sides in the aftermath of the treaty. There appear to have been many allegations of arrogance on the part of the political establishment about the result. I say – and I hope I speak for all politicians – that the people are never wrong. We might fundamentally disagree with their decisions but they are never wrong. That is what the consultation referred to by Senator Costello was about.
As politicians in the second House of the Oireachtas we have an obligation to look at the aftermath. There are serious legal and moral implications which this country must address over the next 18 months. That is the timeframe set by our European partners for the treaty to be either ratified or goodness knows what. I have no answer. Last evening the Minister for Foreign Affairs made it clear he too had no answer. If there are accusations of arrogance, may I be the first to be as humble as I can to the Irish people and say there was no arrogance but there was complacency. All of us accept the result that has come to us. We now have to deal with the aftermath. It is incumbent on this House to act responsibly. Therefore, I ask the Leader not just for a debate on the Treaty of Nice or the aftermath of it or the Referendum Commission, to which Senator Caffrey referred – I believe it should be abolished and let the Government give the money to both sides—
The Senator has made his point.
I appreciate I have been allowed some latitude. Given that it is such a difficult issue I ask the Leader and you, a Chathaoirligh, in your capacity as chairman of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, to debate the aftermath of the treaty and to consider putting in place some structure where this House could have a rolling debate over the next 18 months on the implications rather than a one off debate. All of us agree there was a lack of information and clarity, and that was reflected in the vote last week.
I cannot think of anything worse than a rolling debate. I disagree with Senator Ross on the suggestion of a post mortem because the body politic would need its brain examined to see how it arrived at this conclusion.
I am very worried about the status of Luas and the national stadium, which according to the papers today are at risk because of the decision. I dread the thought of a debate on it, but we are entitled to real answers to our questions. Are these projects in danger or is this just a headline in a newspaper?
Apropos of newspapers and the further conquest of industry by Tony O'Reilly, as a republican in the very true sense of liberty, equality and fraternity, I do not want to address anyone as "Sir". Are we now required to do so?
I fail to see what this has to do with the Order of Business.
This House works on the basis of calling people by their elected or nominated titles. Is it incumbent on newspapers and the media generally to report this man as "Sir"? I am sorry if this is the wrong time to raise this matter, but I want to get clarification.
It is some time since we had a debate on foot and mouth disease. I will preface my comment by saying thanks be to God the good times have come again – almost. Northern Ireland has opened up and that is good news. Rural Ireland is still fairly well closed down, particularly the public cattle marts. I ask the Leader to arrange an urgent debate and have the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development here so that we can discuss how we can reopen markets, sales and cattle marts in an orderly, professional manner.
I support Senator Coogan's call for the Minister for Foreign Affairs to come to the House to discuss the aftermath of the Nice treaty referendum and the wording that he intends to bring to the people. I do not agree with Senator Ross that the people have spoken. The reaction has been that they are not against enlargement, which is the issue we need to discuss in that debate. There are many mixed messages from the public as to why people voted no. Many did so because they did not understand the issues. I would not like to wait 18 months before the issue is raised again. We need the time to debate and discuss it.
I hope the Leader will honour the commitment he gave me before Christmas to have a debate on appropriate education for children suffering from autism. This should be linked to the need for speech therapists of which there are few.
I support Senator Glynn's call for the NRA to come in and discuss how it intends compensating farmers adequately for tearing through their land to build huge motorways or bypasses, without consultation with the farmers or the farming bodies. This has been going on for some time and a debate is needed.
I join in the call for a debate on foot and mouth disease and the agriculture industry. It is now over 80 days since we had an outbreak here and farmers have suffered greatly. I compliment all those who helped to keep the disease out of the country, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development and his officials. It is appropriate and timely to have such a debate, bring the farming industry back to normality and try to restore farm incomes.
I also support the call for a debate on the National Roads Authority. There is now a virtual stand-off between the farming community and the NRA and this is gaining momentum right through the midland counties. The farming organisations are establishing committees in each county to prohibit NRA personnel from going on to their lands. Unless this issue is addressed, the national roads programme, which is part of the national development plan, will not meet its targets.
I support the call for a debate on the National Roads Authority. There is great confusion and anxiety among people who are affected by this issue and there is also great anxiety in local authorities.
I also ask for a debate on insurance for young drivers, on which a report has recently been published. A further report is awaited from Macra na Feirme. The issue should be debated in this House. The level of premiums paid by young drivers is a national scandal. I put it to the Leader of the House that a debate on this issue would be very timely since it is causing great hardship to young people.
With regard to the request for a debate on the outcome of the referendum on the Nice treaty, the people have spoken and have made their sovereign decision. As democrats, we have to accept that decision and there is no dispute about that. However, in the light of some of the comments which have been made, there appears to be a degree of confusion. That could best be cleared up by the Minister for Foreign Affairs coming to the House, when he returns, and reporting on what took place today and yesterday in the discussions which he and the Taoiseach had with their EU counterparts.
I suggest that criticisms of the Referendum Commission are misdirected. The commission is bound by the Constitution and by the McKenna judgment. One might say that the prose used in its material is rather turgid, but it is bound by obligation to conduct itself as it has done. Perhaps the debate should be about the McKenna judgment and other aspects, rather than on the Referendum Commission itself.
The President of the Council of Europe was very forthright in his comments on the execution in America yesterday and on the death penalty. The European voice was present, but one would hope that that would extend into the European Union itself.
I am very impressed, every time I use the toll bridges in Dublin, with their efficiency and the benefit we get from them. The latest news that six to eight bypass roads are likely to be tolled supports the call for a debate on the National Roads Authority. This may well be the most efficient way to proceed and, if so, let us make sure that it has support, but it should not go ahead without a debate. That debate, for which other Senators have called, should take place very promptly, with particular reference to farmland.
I support calls for an opportunity to discuss the Referendum Commission. I agree with Senator Dardis's comments. The commission acted properly on the basis of the McKenna judgment, but we do need to discuss whether that is the best way to do the job, or whether we should have a different system.
I suggest to the Leader that now is the time for a debate on Northern Ireland. News coming from Northern Ireland suggests that the voice of moderation needs to be heard. This House can provide such an opportunity and this may well be the right time to do it. I suggest that we should have that debate in the immediate future.
I will not repeat much of what has been said but I support the call for a stand alone debate on the Referendum Commission arising from the McKenna judgment. It is said that the people are never wrong but it is imperative that a democracy is based on a well informed people. I am unsure if the information transmitted by the commission was the best, either in methodology or content. The commission, like every other institution, is there to serve the best interests of the people. It is interpreting a court judgment but there are other interpretations and the issue may be revisited.
I am not prepared to hand over our country or the euro to a tiny minority who can bring cases to the Supreme Court and get the decisions that serve them. Some of them seem to have the brains of a peahen, judging from last night's television programme. Those of us who take our country and our European status seriously must examine the commission carefully to decide if it is the best vehicle to disseminate the information necessary for the citizenry to make an informed judgment on referendum questions. That is central to the country's and Europe's future. I seek a debate next week.
I was pleased that the people approved a referendum to abolish the death penalty. I was always opposed to it. We are selective in this House in pointing the finger at the United States over this issue as two weeks ago a woman in Iran was put to death by stoning. No one here, or in the media, raised a voice against this barbaric practice.
Hear, hear.
I agree with the call for a debate on the NRA and its activities. It is reprehensible that it sets community against community, farmer against farmer and town against town by proposing four or five possible routes. The NRA knows where the road will go but they get all the farmers, business people and householders along each proposed route fighting to move it elsewhere so that it does not go through their land or community. The NRA should honestly say which route it prefers and then debate that.
No one mentioned today that 20% of the cost of a national primary road goes to consultants. On compensation—
Members did not mention those points because they are saving them for the debate.
The Senator can repeat them then.
I ask that when we consider the NRA we take into account capital gains tax. It is peculiar that farmers must pay this for compulsory take over of their land. That is wrong.
The people spoke on the Nice treaty. Anyone who thinks that this is not a vote against enlargement is going against the wind. We have voted against enlargement. The Nice treaty is gone and we must discuss the Treaty of Amsterdam. All we can do under that is give a maximum of five extra places to applicant countries. Who is going to select—
Senator Lanigan should not anticipate the debate. He may wait until the debate.
He is not anticipating the debate.
I am not anticipating the debate but asking some questions. I made some comments which I should not have.
Without anticipating the debate, I join with my colleagues in calling for a debate on the McKenna judgment as distinct from the Referendum Commission which has taken some undue criticism over the last number of days in particular. It is most unjustified as it was merely implementing what to me is political correctness gone mad in the form of the McKenna judgment. Our debate in the aftermath of the referendum result should focus entirely on the McKenna judgment and I urge the Leader to do what he can to arrange for the Minister to attend.
I refer to Senator Glynn's call for a debate on the National Roads Authority and the mechanism of compulsory acquisition of land around the country. Serious difficulties are emerging on both sides of the land acquisition debate, not just in rural areas but throughout the country where we have the boom in the construction of various infrastructural projects. The machinery in place has become rather archaic and does not appear to meet the needs of vendor and purchaser. It is time we had a full debate on that.
Senators Coogan, O'Toole, Costello, Caffrey, Dardis, Ross, Mooney, Jackman, Quinn, Quill and Glennon expressed their views on the outcome of the referendum. Two referenda were accepted by the people, the third one was not. We owe a debt of gratitude to those people who exercised their franchise and voted in the referenda. I have all the time in the world for those who participate and vote in a democratic way on what is laid before them. I congratulate everyone who went to the polls and made a choice. As has been said by the Deputy Leader, we should have a debate on the McKenna judgment. I can also arrange for the Minister for Foreign Affairs to be present to hear the views of Senators on the Nice referendum. We have to tease out and debate the McKenna judgment and see to where we are going in relation to this judgment. I will certainly ask the Minister when he comes back from Europe early next week or maybe early the following.
Senator O'Toole asked why No. 1 was being taken without debate. The reason is that it would be repetitious to debate it given the item which will follow it. Senators O'Toole, Costello, Ross and Joe Doyle asked that our views on the death penalty be passed on to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Taoiseach, particularly given that the President of the United States, George Bush, is in Europe this week. Senator Joe Doyle expressed his horror at the death of the woman in Iran who was stoned to death two weeks ago. I will certainly pass on the Senator's views to the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs.
Senators Glynn, Jackman, Finneran, Quinn, Lanigan and Glennon once again called for a debate on the National Roads Authority. A massive amount of money is allocated under the national development plan. Because of the motorways and dual carriageways from Dublin to Limerick, Dublin to Cork and Dublin to Galway, in particular, an enormous amount of land – I think it is 20,000 acres – has to be acquired. Naturally, many people in the farming community will have to hand over their lands which they may or may not want to do. In most cases, they do not want this to happen.
It is unbelievable given the total cost of the motorways and dual carriageways that the amount of money being offered to these farmers in compensation is often less than 5% of the total cost. I have no difficulty in setting aside time to debate this matter. Legislation must take account of the order of this House which it always has. In that event, the House can take it for definite that we will have an all day debate on this topic, possibly by the end of this month but certainly before the summer recess. Some Senators pointed out the capital gains aspect. I understand that if the money acquired is reinvested and rolled over, as it is known in the industry, no capital gains tax will apply to the moneys acquired from this type of land purchase.
Senator Ridge called for a debate on progress on the Luas and I can allow time for that.
Senators Callanan and Finneran called for a debate on the reopening of the cattle marts. It is terrific that this will happen. Many farmers have been hard pressed for cash flow over the past number of months. It is a long time since last January for them to have been without a cash flow. I hope and look forward to the marts reopening next week. I will set aside time at the earliest possible date to update the House on this matter. I thank the Whips and Leaders for their co-operation during the foot and mouth crisis.
Senator Jackman called for a debate on autism. I can arrange for the Minister Health and Children to be present and to have such a debate as we have committed ourselves to doing so. Senator Burke called for a debate on young drivers and I already told him I will arrange to have such a debate.
Senator Quinn called for a debate on Northern Ireland. Now that the elections are over in the UK and Northern Ireland, I can allocate time for a full debate on Northern Ireland and ask the Minister to be present.
Order of Business agreed to.