The Order of Business is No. 1, motion re official documents and private papers of Members, to be taken without debate; No. 2, Human Rights Commission (Amendment) Bill, 2001 – all Stages, with the contributions of spokespersons on Second Stage not to exceed 15 minutes and those of all other Senators not to exceed 10 minutes; No. 4, statements on water quality, with contributions not to exceed 15 minutes; No. 3, statements regarding the inquiry into the Arms Trial, with contributions not to exceed 15 minutes. Senators may share time.
Order of Business.
The Order of Business is agreed to. I accept the reasoning behind No. 1 being taken without debate. So many of these motions appear on a regular basis and the Leader circulates to me the reasons as to how they are dealt with. Perhaps we might find some way of reading these reasons into the record of the House in order that others are aware of the reasons particular motions are passed. I have no difficulty with these reasons.
I ask the indulgence of the Cathaoirleach to raise an issue we will be dealing with next week. I want to make a case to the Leader about the banning of opinion polls.
I am very reluctant to allow the matter to be raised this morning because the Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 2000, will be the first item on the Order Paper for Tuesday.
I ask your indulgence because the mechanisms that will be in place next week will be inadequate. I raise the matter because when the Bill passed through this House the banning of opinion polls was not part of it. That amendment was introduced at a late stage in the Dáil, which is none of our business, but the substantive issue of the banning of opinion polls was not debated there. Next week we will only be able to speak once on the entire Bill on the amendments and only one vote can be taken, though not on that particular issue which is an important one. I do not share the hysteria in the press. Talk about Hitlerism and Nazism is abusive language and totally out of proportion. Senator Hayes is far closer to the point when he talks of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It would be wrong for these Houses to introduce a substantial change to legislation without there being a proper debate, even a short one on Second Stage. I ask the Leader to set aside half an hour for statements on this matter on Tuesday, before we take the Bill. That would allow us to hear the reasons the Minister thinks it is appropriate.
I have serious reservations about the amendment into which we are rushing although there is serious advice that it may be unconstitutional. This House would be doing the entire Oireachtas a service if we had a debate of that sort early next week to which we would all like to contribute. I thank the Cathaoileach for his indulgence.
I have allowed the Senator to make the points he wished to make. I hope any further discussion on this matter will be among the Leader and the leaders of the other groups after the Order of Business. It does not concern today's Order of Business.
As one of the leaders of this group, I would be delighted to comply with your request in a limited way.
I hate to introduce any element of disharmony as we come to the summer recess but I do not accept – though I will not oppose the Order of Business – that No. 1 should be taken without debate. I do not accept the fact that we get a note to explain the reasons this should be so. It is a bad principle. It is not satisfactory to accept from an explanatory note that this is somehow read into the record and that, therefore, an explanation is given to us with which we cannot argue. We are being asked to put through controversial matters which deserve discussion. I will not go into detail on the matter before us today, but it is important and I do not understand the reason we are being asked to put it through without debate.
The second item I would like to address is the way in which we conduct our business and what we will do with regard to the Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 2000, on Tuesday. This is a diabolical amendment.
The Senator will have an opportunity to address that matter on Tuesday. During that debate I will be prepared to extend a considerable amount of latitude to the Senator to allow him make those points.
I will not make further judgment on the Bill in this intervention. The material principle is that a matter of such controversy, which this is, should be debated fully. The fact that this is being rushed through both Houses indicates that the political parties are incredibly out of touch with the people. We saw this with the Nice treaty which was passed, virtually unanimously, by this House—
Should Senator Ross declare his interest in this matter?
I have no interest in the matter whatsoever but if the Senator thinks I have—
Senator Ross, this has nothing to do with today's business. I have made a suggestion as to how the leaders of the groups might further discuss or reflect on this matter in advance of Tuesday's sitting. I will not allow further discussion on the merits of the amendment on today's Order of Business. It is not relevant to the Order the Business and it is not in order to discuss it.
I agree with you, a Chathaoirligh. However, I do not wish to indulge in any type of conspiracy with the other leaders of the groups to get this through in a hurry.
The Senator would be a bad conspirator.
I wish to obstruct—
There was no such suggestion or implication in what I or Senator Manning said.
Of course not. I wish to obstruct this Bill. There is a matter of high principle involved here, that matters of this nature should be given a full discussion in both Houses. If this was not fully discussed in the Dáil, I hope it will be in the Seanad and I hope that the few of us who are opposed to this measure will be given a significant amount of time to do so. Debate on an issue such as this should not be restricted and Members opposed to the measure should not be restricted to 15 minutes or so. The matter is too important.
There are no time limits on Committee Stage of a Bill. I assure the Senator that as long as I am in the Chair and as long as the Senator is relevant, he will be given all the time he requires.
All right, but it is a Report Stage amendment. Can the Leader confirm that there will be no time restriction on debate on that Bill next week?
That does not arise on today's Order of Business.
Yes, but I would like a commitment.
You have made your point to the Leader.
I wish to raise an issue that arises almost daily. There are motions before the House which we are expected to take without debate. We were circulated with a brief explanatory memorandum on No. 1 this morning but memoranda of this nature should be circulated to all Members and should be included in the agenda we receive in the morning. There should be time for Members to examine the motions and consider whether they agree with them and whether it is appropriate to take them without debate. It would also be useful, as Senator Manning suggested, if such an explanatory memorandum were read into the record where a debate does not take place. The Committee on Procedure and Privileges should consider this issue.
Why is No. 5, the Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 2000, not before the House this morning? It was the first item on the agenda for Friday morning which was circulated to Members. That was my understanding as of this morning when I received my Order Paper. I still thought it would be the first item of business.
The reason it is not before the House today is that printing difficulties arose because of the time the Bill came from the Dáil.
It is beneficial that it is not before us this morning for all the reasons mentioned by Senator Manning and Senator Ross. It is an extremely controversial matter. There has been advice from the Attorney General that it is unconstitutional.
The Bill is not before the House because it had to be reprinted as amended by the Dáil.
It has been rushed through the House.
The point I wish to make is relevant because it relates to No. 5 on the Order Paper. I want to know how an item which will be before the House next week will be dealt with. It has been suggested by at least two professionals, the previous Attorney General and a senior barrister and constitutional expert, that the Bill is unconstitutional.
The points being made by the Senator are not relevant to today's Order of Business. They can be made when this matter is before the House on Tuesday. Again, every latitude will be extended to the Senator. Perhaps the Senator will take up the suggestion I made that this be discussed between the Leader and the leaders of the other groups after the Order of Business.
Considering the concern about this issue, does the Leader not think it would be appropriate that he find time either later today or at an earlier time on Tuesday to allow the matter to be discussed, perhaps in another forum, before it is discussed on Report Stage? It is a much larger issue than an amendment that has come out of the blue. I am opposed to this amendment.
Is the Labour Party divided?
The Senator will have ample opportunity to indicate his opposition to any part of the Bill.
My concern is that by the time we come to this matter again, it will be guillotined like it was in the other House where it was not even brought to a vote. Are we going to—
As I have explained on numerous occasions, how the other House does its business is not a matter for this House. The other House does its business independently of this House and we do our business independently of that House. We will do our business on Tuesday independently of the other House.
Will the Leader of the House take into consideration all that has been said? There is grave concern on these benches about not only the substance of this item but also the manner in which it has been dealt with so far.
Will the Leader seek clarification of the unhelpful comments by David Trimble and his allegation that the republican movement was responsible for the recent death of a young man in Northern Ireland? The murder was attributed to and claimed by a loyalist movement and the RUC Chief Constable and a Northern Ireland Minister have condemned his remarks. It is appropriate that the Leader should seek clarification of such a serious allegation, which appears to be unfounded. It is a sensitive matter. I fully support decommissioning but this remark by David Trimble was unhelpful.
I am disappointed the House did not have an opportunity to debate either education or disability over recent months, despite numerous calls for such debates from both sides of the House. I hope there will be an early opportunity when the House resumes to have these debates. I have no wish to comment on amendments to Bills which might come before the House but the increasingly frequent practice of dealing with a logjam of legislation at the end of the session should not continue. The Leader should use his good offices to ensure this does not happen again. It is not his wish that it should and I am aware it happens in the other House, but it does not make for good legislation. As we have seen, we reap the rewards from time to time.
I ask the Leader to take up with the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the intimidation occurring in recent months in the College Green, Grafton Street and Wicklow Street area of Dublin. This intimidation comes from groups of collectors for charities which I do not wish to name. They are excellent charities but their collectors are intimidating to people on the streets, particularly women. The collectors look like nightclub bouncers. It is not good enough that people cannot walk our main shopping streets without suffering intimidation by groups of young men. The collectors are probably working on commission for the charities concerned. The causes of these charities are good but the method of collection is atrocious.
In view of the impending crisis in high-tech industry, both here and globally, will the Leader consider a debate in the House during the summer recess if the crisis deepens? There appears to be an impending meltdown in the high-tech sector. Nortel is facing losses in the region of £15 billion, the second highest corporate loss in history. The top ten high-tech companies in Ireland provide 25,000 jobs. Those working in this sector are highly paid with high commitments and we are beginning to see repossessions affecting this group. All indicators point to a deepening of this crisis and, if that is the situation, I ask for a debate before we come back in October. This is a very serious matter.
I ask the Leader to remind those responsible of the public outrage at the way the Houses of the Oireachtas are conducting their business. We are open to criticism, and deserve it, for the rush of legislation through the Houses. The last few days of work every year in the Houses see legislation rushed through which does not get the attention it deserves. I am thinking particularly of the 2,000 sites recently identified as being potentially contaminated by hazardous waste. There is a Seanad Bill going through the Dáil today – the Waste Management (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 2001. If amendments are taken, will they come before this House next week? Will we have a chance to debate these measures in the light of the information on these hazardous sites that has come through today? In the past, the Houses have suffered immense harm by the rushing of legislation. We are doing the same this year. I do not understand the reason so many Bills are put through without debate in the final weeks of the session. I assume it is in our hands whether we do this.
Can the Leader confirm whether the Local Government Bill will come before the House next week? Will he convey the concern of local authority members that, once the Bill is passed next week, as I assume it will be, the Minister for the Environment and Local Government will enter into early and meaningful dialogue with the three representative associations, the IAMI, LAMA and the general council? This dialogue should centre on the implementation of the Bill which applies to those councillors who are seeking, and I hope will now get under the Bill—
The Senator is anticipating legislation coming before the House next week. These are points that can be made in the debate on that legislation. Every latitude will be given to the Senator in that debate.
I fully appreciate that. It is correct. However, as the debate will be held in the last two days of the session, there will be no time for Members to effect changes that may be needed as a result of the Bill coming out of the other House.
Senator Ormonde is in Carlow already.
With other Members, I attended a function last night relating to the publication of the debates of the Houses. I express the thanks of Members to all those responsible for the innovative decision to ensure this information is more readily available. Our thanks particularly go to the Editor Of Debates, Mr. Liam Fitzgibbon, and his staff. It behoves all Members to support this initiative.
I do not want to go down the same road as Senator Ross in relation to polls, except to make a brief comment. Years ago, in racing parlance, a jockey was asked the reason he had not come earlier. He replied that he could not come as the horse would not move. Deputy Lenihan blamed the polls in relation to the Tipperary South by-election result but, as decent a man as Mr. Maguire is, Fianna Fáil had not got the best horse in the race. It was Fine Gael who had the best runner in former Senator Tom Hayes. The result cannot be changed nor the winning post moved if the horse does not quite get up. I support the call for a debate on this matter next week. There will then be an opportunity to discuss all its aspects. We all like good polls and dislike bad ones. If the results had been different, would this matter have got so much attention? This area needs to be debated more fully.
I also ask for a debate on the workings of courts system. In the light of the Attorney General's recent comments, perhaps the Leader could make time available for this in the next session.
I join Senator Manning and others who have requested additional time for consideration of the Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 2000, and other legislation. I hope the Leader is listening to what is being said and will reconsider his position on the matter.
I concur with what Senator Caffrey said on high-tech industry. The possibility that Intel may close for three weeks in the near future, and the implications of this, suggest a real crisis in the industry. I ask for a discussion on the matter in the House next week. I hope the Tánaiste will come to the House to take part in the debate.
In relation to the Flynn report on the IBTS, I ask the Leader to request the Minister for Health and Children to publish the report. It is vital that there is full transparency and accountability, particularly on matters as sensitive as a report on an area that has caused huge concern and major trauma for many in recent years.
In relation to the procedures of the House, it is time Members reconsidered how they comport themselves while in the House. The Minister for Finance was pictured last night on "Oireachtas Report" seated in his chair responding to Senators while another Senator was standing. It did nothing for the image of the House. There is a need for Members to respect its procedures, tradition and history.
Senators Manning, Ross, Costello and Cosgrave expressed opinions regarding the banning of opinion polls section now proposed for the Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 2000, which will be dealt with next week. I understand the proposal came from Fine Gael and was also supported by the Labour Party.
That does not make it right.
I assure the House that there will be no time limit for debate on the Bill. I agree with the Cathaoirleach's suggestion that the leaders meet after the Order of Business this morning to agree a timeframe. To those Senators who believe that legislation is to be guillotined in this House, I reply that during my four years acting as Leader of the House a Bill has never been guillotined. The longest possible time has been given for debate. Any fair-minded person only needed to witness the debate in the House yesterday to understand this. It continued late into the afternoon. Everyone had the opportunity to make their points because they were afforded ample time to do so.
The proposed new section is extremely important and whatever time is necessary will be afforded. I will have no difficulty, when I meet the other leaders after the Order of Business, in acceding to whatever reasonable requests are made. We have nothing to fear, with the exception of the fact that, as legislators, we have a responsibility to members of the electorate to ensure that we are not dictated to and that they are not influenced by the media. There is no doubt that they are influenced between elections.
Senator O'Donovan called on David Trimble to clarify the statement he made yesterday. The Senator also referred to the Chief Constable's interview this morning during which he indicated that, in his professional opinion, no Nationalist organisation was involved in the crime in question and that his investigations would focus on organisations from the other side of the divide in Northern Ireland. Senator O'Donovan made a good point and I will forward his views to the relevant authorities.
Senator Keogh requested debates on disability and education. I have no difficulty in making time available but, as already stated, our primary duty is to ensure that legislation is processed. I will arrange to hold debates on these worthwhile topics when we return from the summer recess.
Senator Lanigan highlighted the fact that people collecting for worthy charitable organisations are doing so in a much more aggressive manner than heretofore. I will pass on his views to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
Senators Caffrey and Taylor-Quinn requested a debate on the future of the high-tech sector. High-tech industry has been very good to Ireland and we have gained enormously from our involvement with it, particularly in terms of the level of our exports. I heard the interview with Intel's public relations representative, who flatly denied reports that the company intended to close down operations for three weeks. I will make time available for a debate on this matter after the summer recess.
Senator Quinn stated that legislation is being rushed through the Houses. If the Senator was present last evening – I am sure he was – he would have seen that people were given ample time to make their points. A guillotine or timeframe was not imposed on the debate on any Bill in this House during the past four years. That was also the case when Senator Manning was Leader of the House. During Senator Manning's period as Leader, I recall sitting until 1 a.m., 2 a.m. and, on one occasion, 5 a.m. On the latter occasion, Senator Rory Kiely spoke on an Adjournment debate at the close of business. We do not do our business in the manner to which Senator Quinn referred. I must state, however, that I respect the opinions of the Senator who has contributed enormously to the workings of the House during the current session.
Senator Mooney raised the Local Government Bill. It is proposed that the legislation will come before the House and, as already stated, all Stages of the debate on it will be dealt with by the House prior to the summer recess. Like all Members, Senator Mooney is closely connected to his constituents. I am sure they will all be meeting in session today and tomorrow in Carlow. I wish them well.
I will pass on Senator Cosgrave's views to the relevant Minister and I will forward those of Senator Taylor-Quinn on the report to which she referred to the Minister for Health and Children.
Order of Business agreed to.