The Order of Business is No. 1, referral of the Customs and Excise (Mutual Assistance) Act, 2001 (Commencement) Order, 2002 to the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service, to be taken without debate; and No. 2, statements on the national children's strategy, with the contributions of spokespersons not to exceed 20 minutes and those of all other Senators not to exceed ten minutes, and Senators may share time.
Order of Business.
The Order of Business is agreed. I hope that by next week there will be greater clarity and certainty as to what has happened at AIB. I ask the Leader for a debate next week on banking. Many of us are amazed at what has happened. To the uninitiated the question of trading seems to be very close to Monte Carlo. People seem to put bets on what might or might not be a good currency in a few months' or years' time. That is not very different from what people do on roulette tables. It is extraordinary that this is such a major part of banking – maybe there is something which I and other Members are missing. I would like the Minister to meet us next week. It is very clear that the people do not want to be part of any bail-out in this case.
Can we have a debate on Northern Ireland? It is often said that debates on Northern Ireland only take place at times of crisis. The coming weeks would be a good time to have a review of what has happened and how we, in this part of the country, can continue to be of help. I gather we will take the Pensions (Amendment) Bill, 2001, next week. Some amendments have been put forward by the Department. They have promised me that all amendments on Committee Stage will be available to Members tomorrow. That has only happened after the Opposition parties applied a lot of pressure on the Department to ensure basic courtesies are respected and that Members of the House are given time to consider them. Even with that, I understand that a significant number of amendments will appear for the first time on Report Stage. This is not good parliamentary practice as Report Stage only allows for a very truncated form of debate. The idea of Report Stage is that changes are reported back after Committee Stage. Will the Leader confirm if it is the intention of the Minister to introduce significant changes for the first time on Report Stage? Is the Leader happy with that?
I support Senator Manning's call for a debate on the issues which have led to the difficulties at AIB as it would be very helpful and useful. I agree with the point raised yesterday by Senator Ross. We are not experts in this area but we need to understand it and have it explained to us so that we can explain it to others and have confidence in the largest company in this jurisdiction. We must be assured the necessary checks and balances and audit standards are in place but we must recognise the reality that there will always be fraud. There is a view abroad that we can legislate to prevent fraud, which we should not reinforce.
I allowed a great deal of latitude on this matter yesterday. I would prefer if Senators were brief. The debate has been sought and it is a matter for the Leader to decide whether to grant it. The debate should not be pre-empted on the Order of Business.
I will refrain from doing so but I ask the Leader to take on board the serious demand for a debate on what happened at AIB so that we can thrash out the issues and be reassured about what is happening in a practical and sensible manner. We cannot prevent wrongdoing from happening again but at least we can have confidence that everything possible is being done internally in the bank.
Like Senator Manning, I wish to refer to No. 5, the Pensions (Amendment) Bill, 2001. I have taken a strong line on this legislation and we must conduct business on the basis of trust across the House and honourable interactions with one another. On three occasions in late November and early December I raised the need to have this legislation taken and I outlined why there were demands to have it passed at that stage. We understood there were some difficulties in the Department and we had to respect that. I asked that the legislation be taken after Christmas and both Senator Manning and I were given a commitment by the Leader that it would be taken on the first sitting day of the new session. When I asked the Leader on 5 December whether he would give his word that it would be taken on the first day of the next session, he replied Committee Stage of the legislation would be debated on the first sitting day after the Christmas recess. I communicated that to interested parties and it has been a source of embarrassment to those of us who represent various interests that the legislation has not been taken.
I am unable to agree the Order of Business and I intend to propose an amendment. The Leader has some explaining to do. If we had been informed of the problems, perhaps we could have pointed those out to interested parties, but we have been embarrassed. I propose that No. 5 be taken first for the reasons that were discussed at length prior to Christmas.
I wish to point out for the information of Members that at 9.30 p.m. last night all the Committee Stage amendments that the Seanad office had processed were circulated to Members and the remainder of the amendments that are being processed will be circulated by lunchtime. Any Government amendments which are tabled on Report Stage but do not arise out of Committee Stage proceedings can be recommitted to a Committee Stage debate through a motion tabled before the House.
I would like to stress the matter I raise in no way reflects on the staff and operation of the House. The matter relates to the Department and the Leader's communications with us. The staff make amendments available as soon as they have them. However, these amendments have not been made available to anybody. The staff of the Houses face the same awkwardness as us.
I support the call, as I did yesterday, for a debate on the Allied Irish Banks issue and the fraudulent activities that took place in the United States. The company's share value has increased, having fallen yesterday, and it is hard to know what happens in the corporate sector. I ask the Leader to broaden the debate to cover the role, operations and services of banks and the effect of regulatory mechanisms on them. We are aware of the argument between the Central Bank and the Minister for Finance regarding the type of regulatory mechanism that was implemented. The Central Bank wanted authority in this regard, which it was not effective at exercising in the past.
I seek a debate on unemployment. Last month's figures showed the greatest increase in unemployment in the past ten years. Germany's unemployment rate is running at 10.4%, which is its highest for years. A debate is necessary because the economy is suffering from the adverse fall out of the 11 September attacks.
Previously I called on the Minister for the Environment and Local Government to come into the House to tease out various aspects of waste management, which is a major issue throughout Ireland, and the Leader indicated he would arrange such a debate. Important issues are involved, such as illegal dumping, abuse of licences and the issuing of bills to households in Dublin that have not paid refuse charges. Very few people have obtained extra services for the charges that have been imposed.
I support the call for a debate on banks in general but it is sad that the media and previous speakers are saying the young man involved in AIB's difficulties committed fraud. He did not because he was simply working to targets and his job was on the line if he did not meet them. Bank employees are pushed to the limit and it is sad that we should accuse a decent man and his family, who have as yet not committed a crime, of any wrongdoing. Let the legal process run its course and let the judges do their job because fireside law and hob lawyers will not do us much good.
The Senator should not pre-empt the debate.
I also refer to the amazing profits made by banks, who benefits from them and, in particular, how banks have ceased—
These matters can be raised during the debate.
Banks are completely impersonal now. One cannot meet a bank manager—
Hear, hear.
It is a disgrace.
The Senator will have an opportunity to raise these matters in the debate.
I seek a debate on the state of the agriculture industry. Last year was not a good year in general for the industry. The BSE scare in France in 2000 carried over into 2001 and then there was almost a disaster following the foot and mouth disease outbreak. Thankfully, the FMD problem is behind us but there remains a worryingly high level of BSE in the national herd. I would like this to be the theme of the debate, if the Leader grants it. There is a need to ensure all animals born before 1996, the year stringent feed regulations were put in place, are taken out of the national herd. The disease continues to occur in that cohort of animals. Despite the introduction of more stringent detection measures, the incidence of BSE on a monthly basis remains worryingly high and the message to foreign consumers is that the disease is almost endemic in Ireland. I hope my request will be acceded to soon.
I join colleagues in calling for a debate on the AIB issue and I am glad the share price is recovering. I wish to make one point that should be made, which follows on from what Senator Farrell said. Treasury is a nice word to cover currency speculation. We have suffered from currency speculation in this country. It always damages the weak. Should Irish banks, which have been rescued by the taxpayer, engage in currency speculation?
These points can be made in the debate which has been sought.
I second Senator O'Toole's amendment to the Order of Business. We have heard a great deal about standards in public life. This works two ways. A debate will take place in the other House about someone who is not permitted by reasons of detention to be present. That is a violation of natural justice. A person cannot be tried in absentia. A debate cannot be held without allowing someone to defend themselves.
This is not a matter appropriate or relevant to the Order of Business.
The person in question is tedious in his stonewalling before the tribunal. Nonetheless, we ought to be allowed hear what he has to say. It is a disgrace and it is wrong.
This is not a matter appropriate or relevant to the Order of Business.
I hold no brief for the circumstances but there is a principle involved.
Will the Leader arrange a debate on human rights and issue an invitation to the Minister for Foreign Affairs to advise us on some concerns which have arisen in the context of the aftermath of the Afghanistan war? We are always asked to be pro-active where international emergencies are concerned, and rightly so. However, there are dangers in the follow-up period and we should take a pro-active interest in these as well. Questions arising from reports in the papers remain to be answered on issues such as the treatment of prisoners, the exercise of democracy, accountability, transparency, responsibility and so on. We would assist world order if we could participate in this debate at this stage and not accept the argument that there is no need for it because the emergency appears to have been sidelined.
Senator O'Toole referred to the Pensions (Amendment) Bill. Whatever happened to the Road Traffic Bill? This was to introduce the penalty points system and was understood to be the one measure which would have a serious effect on the number of deaths on the road and on the ongoing carnage and slaughter. We understood it would be passed by October and that was extended to November and then to December. It has not yet come before the House. We understood early in the previous session that it would not be possible to introduce the penalty points system even if the Bill was passed because the computer technology was not yet ready and it would take another few months, if not a year. It is a sure sign of lethargy on someone's part that it has come to this stage. When will the Bill be before the House?
Will the Leader draw the attention of the relevant Minister to the related proposal by the Dublin Chamber of Commerce during the week for a Dublin traffic corps? This would be a copy of what has happened in other cities throughout the world. It would report to the Garda Síochána and would deal with traffic at peak times. It would be a part-time force and I understand legislation would not be needed to introduce it, although I am unsure about that. This is something which could take place immediately. I would like to hear the response of the Minister to this call by the Dublin Chamber of Commerce.
In the absence of Senator Lanigan, perhaps I might be able to say a word on the issue of the day. While I support the call by Senator Manning and Senator O'Toole for a debate on AIB, I plead with the Leader to restrict it to that. It is a national issue and concerns the branding of AIB, our largest bank. We should not broaden the debate in this case. There is room for that in other circumstances.
I support the call for a debate on waste management and recycling. A debate needs to take place on that urgently.
Will the Leader also arrange a debate on tourism? Last year was a very bad year for the tourism industry, probably the worst for many years. We asked before for a debate on this. Will the Leader arrange such a debate soon?
Senators Manning, O'Toole, Costello, Farrell, Norris and Ross called for a debate following the various announcements emanating from AIB. Given that a finance Bill will be initiated in the House next Tuesday, I will endeavour to allocate a few hours, with the agreement of the leaders and Whips, to allow this debate take place.
Senator Manning called for a debate on Northern Ireland. I do not have any difficulty allowing time for that debate.
Certain Members requested clarification regarding the Pensions (Amendment) Bill. It is true I informed the House that we would debate the Bill on the first sitting day after the Christmas recess. However, following further consultation with Senator Manning and because amendments were not available, it was impossible for the debate to take place. A reasonable amount of time must be allowed for Opposition and Government Members to study the amendments in order that they can debate the Bill and the amendments with no guillotine, no rush and plenty of time. That is still the proposal. I accept the point made by Senator O'Toole about the commitments I gave. However, I gave them in good faith based on information I received. I asked the Chief Whip to ascertain the up to date position following requests from the various leaders on the Order of Business. The Cathaoirleach correctly stated the up to date position. I have informed the leaders of the Opposition parties, with the exception of Senator Costello with whom I did not get to discuss this before the Order of Business, that if all the amendments are tabled in good time, we will order Committee Stage of the Bill for all day Wednesday and Thursday next week.
Senator Costello called for a debate on employment. I am sure the Minister will have great pleasure in coming to the House to discuss the achievements of the Government regarding employment since 1997.
Senator Burke and Senator Costello called for a debate on waste management. We had a debate on this issue in December. I appeal to the House to bear in mind the timeframe when calling for debates. Legislation is being initiated in the House at an unprecedented level and I will facilitate in every way I can the passing of legislation brought before us for our consideration and approval before the general election, which we know will take place in May. I will afford the Labour Party, as is the usual custom, its Private Members' time and perhaps Senator Costello might consider placing this issue for discussion during that time if there is need for further clarification on it. Otherwise, it will be difficult to deal with it given the amount of legislation before the House and serious requests, such as that regarding AIB, which are unplanned but must be addressed.
Senator Connor called for a debate on agriculture. We have had such a debate in every session of this Seanad. They have been the best attended and have had the most contributions made to them. I will arrange a debate on this matter in this session before the general election.
Senator Ó Murchú called for a debate on human rights, especially in the aftermath of the Afghanistan war. This should be discussed and debated. Perhaps when the Minister is present for the debate on Northern Ireland, we might allocate time, with agreement, to allow this debate to take place.
Senator Quinn inquired about the Road Traffic Bill. I will inquire about this today and come back to him in the next day or two. The Senator also raised the issue of a Dublin traffic corps. This is an ideal subject for discussion on Private Members' time if it is possible to obtain agreement among the Independent Members, which I know can be extremely difficult.
It will be more difficult if the Leader makes cracks like that.
Senator O'Toole might use his good offices to allow this to happen. Senator Norris might support it fully given that it concerns his city of Dublin.
Senator Burke called for a debate on tourism. I can allow time for this debate.
Senator O'Toole proposed an amendment to the Order of Business, that No. 5 be taken before No. 1. Is the amendment being pressed?
I am afraid it must be pressed. I am not happy with the assurances I have received. I cannot depend on the assurances I received from the Leader.
Amendment put.
Tá
|
Burke, Paddy.Connor, John.Cosgrave, Liam T.Costello, Joe.Cregan, Denis (Dino).Henry, Mary. |
Manning, Maurice.Norris, David.O'Toole, Joe.Quinn, Feargal.Ridge, Thérèse.Ross, Shane. |
Níl
|
Bohan, Eddie.Bonner, Enda.Callanan, Peter.Cassidy, Donie.Cox, Margaret. |
Cregan, JohnDardis, John.Farrell, Willie.Fitzgerald, Liam.Gibbons, Jim. |
Níl–continued
|
Glennon, Jim.Kett, Tony.Kiely, Daniel.Lanigan, Mick.Leonard, Ann.Lydon, Don.Moylan, Pat. |
O'Brien, Francis.Ó Fearghail, Seán.Ó Murchú, Labhrás.Ormonde, Ann.Quill, Máirín.Walsh, Jim. |
Tellers: Tá, Senators O'Toole and Ross; Níl, Senators Farrell and Gibbons.
Amendment declared lost.
Order of Business agreed to.