The Order of Business today is No. 1, motion re the Freedom of Information Act, 1997, (Prescribed Bodies) (No. 4) Regulations, 2001, to be taken without debate; No. 2, referral of motion re the Council regulation regarding examination of asylum applications to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights, to be taken without debate; No. 3, Law of the Sea (Repression of Piracy) Bill, 2001 – Report Stage; No. 4, statements on the economy, not to be taken before 11.30 a.m. with the contributions of spokespersons not to exceed 15 minutes and those of all other Senators not to exceed ten minutes, to conclude no later than 5 p.m.; No. 5, statements on Aer Lingus, not to be taken before 5 p.m., with the contributions of spokespersons not to exceed 15 minutes and those of all other Senators not to exceed ten minutes, and to conclude not later than 8 p.m. Senators may share time.
Order of Business.
I am glad the Dáil has accepted the significant amendments made by this House to the Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 2000. I congratulate all who were involved in helping change the Government's mind and making it back-track on the issue.
It was a Fine Gael amendment.
Will the Leader explain the state of the Aer Lingus Bill, 2000? It is my understanding that the Bill was passed in this House and has now been withdrawn. Why is that?
I am encouraged by the hopeful signs from Northern Ireland. We may well be on the brink of decommissioning, the logjam may break and real progress may be made. Against that background and given that this House has always been very helpful and responsible in its debates on Northern Ireland, will the Leader provide time for an early debate?
Many firms are facing massive increases in the cost of insurance. A firm that I dealt with this morning has had its insurance cover increased from £45,000 to £145,000 per annum. This is happening to many other companies and I ask the Leader to arrange an early debate on these massive insurance hikes, which may be largely due to external factors. It is important that we have a debate on the issue as this is a cost that will drive Irish companies out of business.
Last week, I asked for a debate on binge-drinking and the way in which the drinks industry is targeting students and vulnerable people. In drink promotions, drink is almost thrown at young people. The drinks industry is behaving in a cynical, irresponsible and almost criminal way, and I would like a debate on the issue.
In relation to the query which Senator Manning raised concerning the Aer Lingus Bill, 2000, the Dáil has decided not to proceed with the Bill. The effect of the order made is to withdraw the Bill from the Dáil agenda.
Nonetheless, the Bill still passed this House.
Yes.
It is my understanding that it can be reinstated on the Dáil Order of Business at any time. I want to satisfy myself that the passing of the Bill in this House has not been made void in any way.
Yes. The Bill was passed by this House but the passing of the Bill by one of the Houses of the Oireachtas does not bring it into legislation. The Dáil has withdrawn the Bill from its Order Paper. The Dáil is not proceeding with it. That is the decision of the Dáil made under a Standing Order of the Dáil.
It has no implications for us in this House.
None. It is the same as if the Bill lapsed on the dissolution of the Dáil.
That is precisely what I wanted to find out. Thank you.
I support the call by Senator Manning for a debate on Northern Ireland. This week we will have either development or collapse. It is as simple as that. There will either be movement this week or we will have a disaster on our hands. Either way, we should focus on it next week. If things go wrong, political voices need to be raised immediately and if there are developments we need to be able to respond to them. I ask the Leader of the House to give an absolute commitment that we will have a debate on this matter next week.
I thank the Leader for fulfilling his promise to allow for statements on the economy and statements on Aer Lingus and I look forward to making a contribution on those issues. An issue we have discussed in this House regularly is housing, particularly for young people. In the national development plan there was a commitment to provide for 50,000 to 55,000 starts per annum. I am now certain that will not be achieved. Rather than wait for the collapse of this provision, I ask the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Molloy, to come to this House to facilitate a debate so that we can better understand the issue and give a clear message on it. There are builders who are used to big profits and who have now stopped building. They do not like the Minister's Bill providing for social housing and they do not like the Bacon report which is curtailing investment. They should recognise that they come under democratic control like the rest of us. These people think that they can sit on their land banks and go to Marbella for three years and wait for the demand to increase again in order to sell houses at inflated prices. We should be telling them, as a democracy, that they either use it or lose it in terms of their land banks.
There is not a lack of demand for housing. The number of young people is growing and the demand for housing is simply being deferred. Prices will jump again in 18 months' time and we need to take decisions on it now. This is why we need to have a debate on housing now.
I received useful information from the Leader of the House this morning on No. 2. The reason we accept these items without debate is that they are referred to a committee. When we agreed on that procedure some years ago, it was on the basis that once the committee had discussed it, its report would return to this House for discussion. That does not appear to be happening. Someone should actively ensure that matters which we refer to committees are reported back to this House. It should be like the system of legislation – a committee followed by a report back to the House.
I ask the Leader to explain why this document comes from the ‘Office of Leader and Government Chief'. Does this indicate that there is a new Government chief and that the Leader now has two titles? I understand Government chief whip, but this says it is from 'Government Chief'. I thought there was only one chief in the Fianna Fáil Party.
Senator O'Toole, I think you have made the point.
I would appreciate some help with that one.
We have not been given any reason why the Dáil decided to withdraw the Aer Lingus Bill, 2000 that was introduced in this House. Does this mean that the privatisation policy is being abandoned by the Government?
I have protested against items under the Freedom of Information Act coming on to the agenda so often because it is an unnecessary waste of valuable time. We should have an enabling mechanism so that only items that do not come under the terms of the Act would be dealt with in this House or the Dáil. I am sure my colleagues behind me will be glad to know that with this regulation both the NUI and Trinity College will come under the glare of publicity and it will be open to the public to see for themselves the arcane activities carried out in those third level institutions. That is worthwhile but the mechanism is wrong for dealing with matters under the Freedom of Information Act.
I agree with Senator O'Toole regarding the second item that it seems irregular to do what we are being asked. I acknowledge that the Chief Whip gave me an explanation of the intention but it seems we are being asked to approve today that the President of the Council be notified of our agreement on this matter and that we wish to take part in the adoption of an application of this option in the protocol of the Amsterdam treaty. Yet this will not come back to this House until 25 October. We are therefore approving something which goes to committee and comes back to the House on 25 October. What is the sense in approving it now? Surely the proper time to approve it would be when it returns from committee and when the matter has been laid before this House and we have been given the opportunity to examine it. It is an important issue, replacing the 1997 Dublin convention which applies to the manner in which we deal with asylum seekers in this country. This should be the subject of a debate and we should hear all views.
The way we are dealing with our business is sloppy and we are quick to send issues to committee. We have a responsibility to examine regulatory matters that come before us. If we do not examine them carefully, we as legislators are not doing our jobs properly. I am worried about some examples of this which have arisen recently.
I call for a debate on Northern Ireland, which is long overdue. We have called for it nearly every week since the House resumed and as we all know we are reaching a crisis point. Every time we reach such a point, it seems that the critical nature of the circumstances in themselves prevent that debate. With the prospect of decommissioning taking place at last and a question as to whether the institutions will continue or fall, it would be worthwhile to tease out the implications. I would welcome a decent debate on Northern Ireland next week.
I call on the Leader of the House to have a debate on homelessness, particularly as we approach the winter. I was in the new homeless unit in Gardiner Street yesterday and noted the increase in the numbers of homeless people living rough on the street who have to be accommodated. In spite of the efforts that have been made, housing provision in general has deteriorated and for the homeless the provision is completely inadequate. It is time we brought the Minister to the House again to find out what is happening. Is it true that builders are simply sitting on parcels of land—
I have given the Senator quite a good deal of latitude and the Leader of the House gave an assurance yesterday that there would be a debate on homelessness in this session.
Can we make sure that builders are not sitting on banks of land simply because there is a provision for 20% social and affordable housing?
I asked some time ago and I ask again for a debate on Travellers. It is time we differentiated between Travellers and business people who travel. There are many small business people who cannot compete with those people who are travelling doing tarmacadam work on streets, landscaping, scrapping cars and so on. They leave the place in a mess after them. I am glad that it is starting to hit the headlines in Dublin now because we have had this for years in the country. Small businessmen cannot compete against them. The excuse made is that they are Travellers. Circus performers are travellers. They come into an area and leave the place spotless. They pay their taxes.
These are all points which can be made in the debate which you seek. We cannot pre-empt that debate on the Order of Business.
I am pointing out its importance. In the west we have traditional Travellers who circulate around north Sligo, south Donegal, south Sligo and north Roscommon – they come around every so often. These communes come into the country and cause a mess. A small man was recently prosecuted and fined £50 for throwing chips to ducks on a lake, but these people throw cars, engines and scrap everywhere and seem to be immune from the law. All I want is a fair playing field so that the ordinary man living here must obey the law, as must everyone who comes here.
I ask the Leader to invite the Minister for Health and Children to come to the House and explain how he intends to eradicate child poverty. The Children's Rights Alliance maintains that at least one child in eight is living in poverty. We should all feel ashamed about this figure. This is a matter of great urgency as the budget approaches.
There are some very encouraging messages emanating from both traditions in Northern Ireland. This is something we had all hoped for at this crisis point in the peace process and both Governments are cautiously optimistic. It is a very sensitive week in the process and the timing of any debate is important. I ask the Leader to consider an appropriate time.
I support Senator Manning's call for a debate on the insurance industry. Several businesses are about to collapse due to the increased cost of insurance. The motor industry and young drivers also merit discussion. I also support Senator O'Toole's call for a debate on the housing industry. There is no confidence in the construction industry and a debate in relation to housing would be appropriate before the budget. Houses are not selling but rents have gone sky high. There are no fools out there who will build houses if they cannot sell them.
The next week or two is an appropriate time for a debate on Northern Ireland. Things are delicate there at the moment and one is almost afraid of denunciation or encouragement for fear of tipping the balance, but the vibes are better than they have been for some time. A dramatic act of decommissioning or taking arms out of use, as promised, will be key. If this is available, Mr. Trimble should be prepared to guarantee the continuity of the institutions and not use them as a bargaining point.
I ask the Leader of the House to convey to the Minister for Health and Children the need for straightforward, simple and rapid instructions to avoid the panic in relation to anthrax which seems to be gripping the country. We are giving a licence to every lunatic to do things. We should not wait for the encyclopaedic version of emergency instructions but should issue a small statement telling people not to panic, what to do and who to get in touch with, otherwise everybody with dandruff on his collar will have to be decontaminated. Yesterday at Independent Newspapers, of which I am a director, four unfortunate security men were stripped and sluiced and kept in an ambulance for an hour and a half while somebody decided which hospital they should go to or whether they should go to hospital at all.
The Minister might issue instructions today to prevent this sort of incident and to reassure the public that we are not on the edge of a cataclysm.
Could the Leader ask the Minister for the Environment and Local Government to come to the House to debate the role and responsibility of the Environmental Protection Agency? A particular type of waste has been left lying because the EPA stated that it could not go to landfill and could not be spread. Nobody seems to have responsibility for it. I wish to ask the Minister, because it has been ruled out of order on the Adjournment, who has the final say on a particular type of waste which may belong to another classification. If we are serious about caring for the environment, we should know where the responsibility lies.
I support the call by Senator Manning for a debate on the increase in insurance rates for business people. Could the Leader include in that debate insurance for young drivers and insurance for private and commercial motor vehicles? We have seen very steep increases in insurance costs over the last year. Young drivers find it very hard, especially in the climate that has existed since 11 September. This is all the more reason to have a debate on the question of motor insurance. Most young people need a car to take them to and from work and they cannot afford to pay their insurance.
I support the call for a debate on insurance.
There is huge concern regarding the slowdown in house building and there is evidence that land has been set aside by house builders in anticipation of more profitable periods. I heard Senator O'Toole's colourful phrase, ‘Use it or lose it', but we may not go quite that far. The Minister must address this matter in the upcoming budget and I ask the Leader to convey this or to arrange for us to discuss the matter. Everything should be done to encourage house builders to get on with it.
I support the call by Senator Farrell for a debate on the Traveller community. There are two aspects to this debate. Local Traveller consultative committees have made real and substantial progress on providing accommodation for indigenous Travellers. As Senator Farrell mentioned, we have just come to the end of the tourist season during which marauding traders traversed the entire country entering public and private property and demanding, and in many cases receiving, goodbye money. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform might come to the House to facilitate that debate and advise on whether legislation is needed to deal with this new phenomenon.
Two weeks ago I asked the Leader to provide time for a debate on the livestock industry, which, as a component of the whole agricultural industry, is facing bankruptcy. Our trade with Egypt has been reopened in a limited manner but that will have very little impact. It is a crisis. The Leader has always been accommodating on this issue in the past. I repeat my request for a debate next week in the presence of the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development.
There was an excellent debate yesterday on special needs in education. I congratulate the Minister for Education and Science on the priority rating he has given to special needs schools following the review of the building programme that has taken place. It goes to show the commitment this Government has towards bettering the lives of people with a disability.
Yesterday I informed the House during the Order of Business that the Aer Lingus Bill, 2000, was withdrawn from the Order Paper. It is easy to know that Senator O'Toole does not come under the Government Chief Whip because everyone on this side of the House knows that Senator Tom Fitzgerald is the Government Chief Whip.
We thought it was a new de Valera from the midlands.
He is a modern day de Valera from Dingle, a Kerryman like Senator O'Toole. We all know that many chiefs come from Dingle. Senators Manning, O'Toole, Costello, Ó Murchú and Hayes called for a debate on Northern Ireland. I will endeavour to have this take place next Thursday if the Minister is available. I fully agree with the sentiments that have been expressed on this subject and, like all the Members, I hope and pray that the progress will continue and something positive will happen before the debate next Thursday. It is never the wrong time to do the right thing. I would be very pleased to have a debate here where hopefully more progress will be reported.
Senators Manning, Burke, O'Brien, Coghlan and many others expressed their alarm at insurance costs. Companies have been put in a position of having to trade in public buildings which do not have any public liability insurance. It is a disgraceful state of affairs that family businesses in particular cannot get a quote for public liability insurance following the collapse of a well-known insurance company in the past few weeks. There are very large establishments across the country each employing from 50 to 250 people with no public liability at present. Those families are in fear of being put out of business if a serious accident takes place on their premises. I am endeavouring to have a debate on that aspect of the insurance industry next Thursday for most of the day along with a debate on Northern Ireland.
There was a call this morning for a debate on young drivers and the motor insurance industry. The motor insurance industry report is due in the early stages of next year and I give a commitment to the House that we will have an all day debate on this issue as soon as the report is published. I believe the lack of public liability insurance for business from hoteliers to all types of industry is of such seriousness that we will take statements for as long as is necessary with the Minister present next Thursday.
Senator Manning called for a debate on binge drinking. I have no difficulty in this taking place, particularly in regard to the promotional activity among young people in educational institutions. No Oireachtas Member can stand over this and be proud of it. I appreciate the wealth of knowledge and the high esteem in which Senator Manning is held within that industry.
Does the Leader mean the drinks industry?
The drinks industry?
No. The education industry. Senator Quill also came from that sector.
I am grateful for that clarification.
It is mentioned with a genuine concern and it is not to be taken in a jocular way because it is the most dangerous drug of all and costs the country an absolute fortune. Any drug that causes an excess of 7,000 admissions for first time referrals for alcohol disease has to be taken extremely seriously and I have no difficulty having time allocated for this debate.
Senators O'Toole, Burke and Coghlan called for a debate on housing with the Minister for the Environment and Local Government present. Statements have been made here this morning regarding land banking and, in an effort to discourage this practice, anyone without planning permission on a development at a certain stage will have their planning permission invalidated on 31 December 2002.
That is just another year in Spain.
If someone owns land and does not do anything with it I do not know any law in the land that can change that.
We can build social housing on it and they would soon wake up.
It is an individual's right. If people want to have their land for agricultural purposes they have the right to do that and no one can take it from them. We have to be realistic about this. I have a wealth of experience in dealing with people in my constituency who have this problem. I agree with most of what Senator O'Toole said. Rents increase if we do not have housing and that is happening at present.
There are developers who own large plots and tracts of land.
The Senator is speaking about the cities—
No.
—but there is no housing development and a decreasing population in larger towns and the rural part of Ireland where I come from.
Yesterday we welcomed the initiative of the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Deputy Ó Cuív, to do something for the declining parts of the country. There are haves in one part of the country and have nots in another, so we have to look at it in a broad perspective. I have no difficulty facilitating a debate on this matter and to making a contribution on it myself.
Senators O'Toole and Costello spoke about No. 2 and I hope to bring this back to the House. I take exception to Senator Costello's remark that our business is conducted in a sloppy way. I take seriously the request of Senators, particularly the leaders of the groups, when they make their requests on the Order of Business but I cannot condone a leader of a group whose party does not come to the House when the subject requested is being debated. I generally make provision for such requests one or two weeks after they have been made.
The Leader should withdraw that remark. The Labour Party group is in this House on a regular basis and we were here yesterday when I was allocated a spokesman's time slot—
We cannot enter into a debate on this matter.
—but I was not allowed to have it.
I was indicating—
The manner in which the Leader of the House—
Senator Costello, please allow the Leader his right to reply.
—allocated business yesterday ruled my party out of being able to take a proper slot.
Is clarification needed for the three Labour Party Senators out of 60 Members? They have been given group status in the House and on the Order of Business two weeks ago they called for something but when the time came for it to be discussed not one of the three was present. I am reluctant to say this but I have listened to their remarks over the last number of months and this morning I wish to set the record straight.
I object to the Leader's remarks.
Senator Costello also called for a debate on homelessness and I will certainly allocate time for that.
The Leader has been casting aspersions on the Labour group. We are in this House proportionately more than any other group and we contribute to every debate and—
You have made your point, Senator Costello. Please allow the Leader of the House to reply without interruption.
—the Leader of the House conducted the debate yesterday in such a manner that we were unable to contribute because we did not get time to take our slot. For the Leader of the House to attack the Labour group is outrageous.
Senator Costello, please resume your seat.
What I said on the Order of Business today was in regard—
It is very unusual for any Leader to be interrupted.
—to the two motions. I said I was dissatisfied with the manner in which the Leader was organising the motions that were being presented to us. The Leader has used the opportunity to cast aspersions on the Labour group and should withdraw his remarks.
The Leader is replying. The matter raised can be debated at CCP.
Good.
What I have said is a matter of fact and I have stood here, sat here and listened to Senator Costello preaching.
That is not accurate.
We cannot have—
The Leader of the House is not stating an accurate fact. It is totally inaccurate.
On a motion you called for two week ago—
We were here last night—
The Leader should address his reply through the Chair and should be allowed to reply, but he should not invite interruptions.
Senator Costello called for a debate on homelessness.
It was only thanks to the generosity of Senator Farrell that I was allowed to speak.
The Leader should not invite interruptions.
I have no difficulty in allowing time for such a debate to take place.
Thank you.
As you have stated, a Chathaoirligh, this was called for by Senator Ridge yesterday. I have no difficulty in setting time aside for such a debate. If Senator Costello is genuinely concerned about this, I suggest he include it in Labour Private Members' time for next week, otherwise I will not be able to take it until after the Hallowe'en recess.
Senators Farrell and Ó Fearghail called for a debate on Travellers, including those who are in business. I have no problem in setting time for such a debate. Senator Keogh called for a debate on child poverty, with the Minister for Health and Children present. I have no problem in allowing time for this debate. Senator Hayes called for the Minister for Health and Children to make an immediate statement on the anthrax problem and the various statements and misstatements that are circulating. I shall convey the Senator's views to the Minister after the Order of Business this morning.
Senator Jackman called on the Minister for the Environment and Local Government to make a statement or come to the House to discuss the future of the Environmental Protection Agency. This is a good idea and perhaps this can happen in the coming weeks. Senator Connor called for an immediate debate on the livestock industry. As the Senator has said, I have always acceded to calls for debates on agriculture. They are the best attended and a greater number of Senators contribute to debate on agriculture. I shall certainly have time set aside for such a debate. I shall convey Senator Kett's vote of congratulations to the Minister for Education and Science.