Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 21 Feb 2002

Vol. 169 No. 7

Order of Business.

The Order of Business is No. 1, motion re Customs and Excise (Mutual Assistance) Act, 2001, to be taken without debate, and No. 2, Ombudsman for Children Bill, 2002 – Order for Second Stage and Second Stage, with the contributions of Senators not to exceed 20 minutes and on which Senators may share time.

I have a few brief questions of the Deputy Leader. I am sorry the Leader is not present because I am sure I would get great and very clear answers. What is the current status of the Referendum Commission? Is the Referendum Commission the body that tells us the facts in a clear and unvarnished way? Does it effectively provide the definitive view on what are the issues in the referendum? If so, why is there a direct contradiction between members of the Government and the Referendum Commission on the question of the morning after pill? Either one or the other is right.

Do the Deputy Leader and those on the Government side still believe the Minister of State and the Government have handled the Disability Bill well?

That is an unfair question. Three weeks ago the first item on the Order of Business was the referral of the Customs and Excise (Mutual Assistance) Act, 2001 (Commencement) Order, 2002 to Joint Oireachtas Committee on Finance and the Public Service. I require the assistance of the Cathaoirleach on a technical matter requiring a procedural response. I have argued for and supported the idea that a debate is not required on a matter prior to its referral to a committee. The debate should take place at the committee. That item was referred to the committee, dealt with there and has now come back to the House. Whether we decide to debate it today is a separate issue, but it is not a convention here to decide not to have a debate on something that comes back from a committee. We may decide not to have a debate and because it is a pretty dry and technical matter we do not need to have a debate on it. However it is different from the referral to a committee. This has now come back from a committee, it is being implemented and the House should be aware of that. There has never been a Whips' agreement that matters coming back from a committee would not be open to debate. I would like the Deputy Leader's view on that. If Members of the House have something to say on it, they should be allowed to do so.

I note that Ireland valiantly came fourth in an unrecognisable event in the Winter Olympics yesterday through a member of the British aristocracy.

The Irish aristocracy.

The Irish aristocracy.

I am sorry and I stand corrected. He is a member of the Irish aristocracy. I also note that today Prince Michael of Kent will be feted in the west of Ireland as he presents county councils with awards. Last week the Prince of Wales was in Ireland and was well received. Are we being love bombed by the aristocracy, British and Irish, and is this not a good thing for Ireland?

Hear, hear. Well said.

What is the relevance to the Order of Business?

I will put a question. I think we should consider again having a debate that we have not had for 70 years in this House on the relationship between this House and the British and Irish aristocracy. You will recall, a Chathaoirligh, that the first office holder in your position was a member of the Irish aristocracy. Perhaps it is time to re-open this issue. I know my colleagues from Trinity will have much to say about this, but I would like to get a view from Fianna Fáil.

A Chathaoirligh, or should I say Sir Brian, I would like also to raise the issue raised by Senator Manning regarding the referendum and to ask who has pre-eminence in matters of interpretation relating to information being supplied to the public about the twenty-fifth amendment. There seems to be further confusion in this area with conflicting reports about what the Referendum Commission will circulate to the public and the Government's views on the matter. Yesterday we called for both the Taoiseach and the Minister for Health and Children to come to the House. Can we request that a representative of the Referendum Commission address the Houses of the Oireachtas on such matters? Perhaps the Deputy Leader could clarify that point.

All sides of the House have asked for the Minister for the Environment and Local Government to come to the House to deal with the waste management strategy. The strategy between the canals in Dublin is a continuation of the old plastic bag system. A service charge has now been imposed and is euphemistically called a bin charge, although there are no bins. A special meeting of Dublin City Council was called on Friday because 84% of Dublin citizens are refusing to pay it. The strategy is falling apart. I also want the Minister to address the issue of hazardous waste. There are reports almost every day in the newspapers about illegal dumping in some parts of the country. Those two issues must be addressed. We have called on a number of occasions for the Minister for the Environment and Local Government to come to the House. Perhaps he will do so in the near future.

I ask the Deputy Leader to ask the Minister with responsibility for insurance to come to the House for a debate on insurance. All insurance costs, including those for young drivers and public liability, have gone through the roof. People cannot afford to pay the extraordinary increase in insurance prices in recent years. I and other Members have asked for the relevant Minister to come to the House to debate this issue. It is critical that we have such a debate.

Has the Deputy Leader received a response from the Leader about my request yesterday to invite the Minister for Health and Children to the House to discuss the confusion about only one aspect of the forthcoming referendum, namely, the morning after pill? We discussed this issue at great length in the House. There are many different shades of opinion on it. I invite the Minister for Health and Children to the House to give him the correct information in this regard. I am sure he would benefit from my expertise in the area.

In view of the remarks made yesterday and today about the Disability Bill and the gracious consent of the Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Mary Wallace, in allowing further consultation on this issue, it is an ideal opportunity to invite her to the House to hear our contributions. As someone who has worked in the area for 20 years, I know that the Minister of State is held in high esteem by all the organisations in the disability sector. The Government is the first to focus on disability by appointing a Minister of State with sole responsibility for it.

That is a party political broadcast.

I support the call for the Minister of State, Deputy Mary Wallace, to come to the House for a reasonable discussion on the matter. I accept she is a thoroughly decent and hard-working person. There is no doubt there is a level of panic in the Government and it has made mistakes. I am glad it has decided to alter the Bill, but it would be better to withdraw it. It should also look at several other Bills where the same penny-pinching attitude, probably forced on it by the Department of Finance, is evident.

Will the Deputy Leader convey my good wishes, and I am sure the good wishes of everyone else in the House, to the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, Deputy de Valera? Perhaps we could invite her to come to the House to explain the situation involving the Abbey Theatre. I am glad there is an opportunity for it to stay on the historic site, but the House would be interested to learn some of the details of the matter.

I support the call for an explanation from a member of the Referendum Commission. I am not sure if I am correct in thinking the Clerk of the Seanad is a member of the commission. If that is the case, we can short circuit matters and invite Ms Deirdre Lane, who is a highly accomplished person, to address the House at once. Senator Keogh said the Minister for Health and Children would benefit from her wisdom. That is something in the future; it is a hypothesis. However, we know from our experience of the past that we have all benefited from the wisdom of Ms Deirdre Lane. We could do it again this morning. An amendment to that effect to the Order of Business would be refreshing. How many amendments can I table to the Order of Business? Can I table two since I also have another one in mind?

The Senator can only have one amendment before the House at any one time.

I formally propose that we invite the Clerk of Seanad Éireann, Ms Deirdre Lane, to address Seanad Éireann before the start of the other business.

I do not think the Senator's proposal is in order. There is no procedure to allow the Clerk of the Seanad to address the House.

I regret that because I am sure it would have been illuminating. In that case, I propose that we take No. 1 with debate because it is extraordinary. We have someone who acts as our representative, Senator O'Toole, and a Whip, Senator Ross, but neither of them was consulted about it. It is academic whether it is taken with debate, but as an effective although small group within the House, we should be treated with a degree of courtesy and formalities should be observed.

I ask the Deputy Leader for a debate on international affairs. I note that President Bush paid a visit to a bunker in South Korea to observe North Korea at first hand. I was surprised at some of the comments he made. Iraq and Iran also seem to be coming into the frame and there are some unusual developments taking place in the Philippines. I know there is a lot of unrest among the allies in Europe about what is happening and they are often not kept informed. It is important for us to maintain our independent stance in this regard. I would like us to continue as an honest broker, as we have done in the past, in any negotiations with North Korea about an embassy – we are the only country in Europe that does not have one there – or in any other development with these countries which are being brought into the frame.

I raise the issue of the industrial relations problem in our schools. Time is ticking by and it is extraordinary that the Minister for Education and Science has not said anything. He is treating the issue in a casual manner. This is the examination term as examinations will be held in June. I hope the Minister will come to the House and discuss the legitimacy of the teachers' claim. They only want pension rights for substitution work. The issue was raised yesterday, but nothing has been done about it since then.

I join Senator Keogh in asking the Minister for Health and Children to come to the House to discuss something he does not seem to have grasped. It would be good for the public to hear a debate in the House on the morning after pill.

I support the call for the Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Mary Wallace, to come to the House for a debate on the Disability Bill. I endorse the views expressed by Senator Kett about her track record. I hope she has an opportunity to consider the Labour Party's track record on disability issues. I refer to the former Minister for Equality and Law Reform, Mr. Taylor.

Those points can be made during the debate which has been sought.

I am trying to illustrate my point.

That was five years ago.

In relation to absolute rights, I suggest to the Leader that it would be very useful for us in our discussions if it were put before us how the Labour Party responded to absolute rights when it was in Government.

I formally second Senator Norris's amendment to the Order of Business on the grounds that it is bad practice that measures should be presented to us without debate. I would wager that very few Members of this House, myself included, know what this particular measure is about, and I am very suspicious when I am told it is a technical measure. It is acceptable on occasion that measures go through without debate, but we are owed an explanation at least as to why it is not worthy of debate and what the essence of the measure is.

I add my voice to those calling for a debate on the Disability Bill, 2001. I understand the Bill has been withdrawn but the issues that were raised, both by the National Disability Association and by the Bill itself, are worth addressing. The Government is now apparently saying that it will be 2015 before the trains will be fully accessible for wheelchairs, while the stations will not be ready until 2020. This is the type of farce we are dealing with. It is appropriate that the Minister should come before the House to discuss the issues that she failed to address in the Bill.

I request that a Minister come before the House to discuss the situation brought about by the total downfall of the ISEQ and the implications for pensions and the elderly. It has huge implications because so much of the ISEQ is tracked to Elan or AIB. A huge number of people do not understand why their investments should be put into a minority of companies in this country and why there is no accountability for investment mangers in the insurance industry. They have an obligation to ensure that people who put money into insurance policies are not totally devastated when one or two companies on this island go down the spout or experience glitches. This is the sole responsibility of people on huge salaries and huge bonuses, yet when things go wrong they do not lose their salaries or their bonuses. The people becoming pensioners this year, however, will suffer dramatically.

I support the call for the Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Mary Wallace, to come before the House to discuss the Disability Bill, 2001 and to clarify whether the Bill has been withdrawn or remains subject to amendment on the floor of the other House.

Regarding Senator Fitzgerald's comments in the course of that debate, the rights-based approach to this issue was first instigated by the Minister for Equality and Law Reform, Mervyn Taylor, and the Labour Party when in Government. It contrasts with the charity-based approach of the Government.

I support Senator O'Brien in calling for a debate on insurance. Such a debate has been sought on several occasions and I again request the Deputy Leader to ask the relevant Minister to come before the House.

I also ask the Deputy Leader to request the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation to come before the House during this session so that we can have a meaningful debate on tourism. The tourism industry suffered a number of setbacks last year, including foot and mouth disease and the events of 11 September.

I must have a strange effect on the House because there seems to be a note of mild hysteria whenever I occupy this chair. I begin by answering a question asked yesterday which the Leader kindly said I would deal with today. Senator Quinn asked when we would take the Report and Final Stages of the Competition Bill, 2001. I am glad to inform the Senator we took them yesterday afternoon.

Regarding the Referendum Commission and its status, it would be totally inappropriate to drag members of the commission into political controversy. The nature of the document produced by the commission is contentious and does require debate, but it would not be my intention to draw the members of the commission into that debate. A question was asked regarding the interpretation of some of these matters, particularly in relation to the morning after pill. I take a fundamentally different view from the one expressed on the other side of the House. I believe the morning after pill is protected. Ultimately, these matters are resolved by the courts in the event of the legislation being adopted and the referendum passed. It is a matter for the courts at the end of the day. These matters were debated exhaustively when the Bill went through the House and I am not sure if there is anything to be gained by reopening the same debate and repeating the points that were well made then.

Senators Norris, Kett, Fitzgerald, Coogan, O'Meara and others raised the matter of the Disability Bill, 2001. It is a credit to the Minister of State, Deputy Mary Wallace, that she took this flexible approach, that she was prepared to listen attentively—

She did it under absolute panic and pressure.

That is what she should do.

She listened—

(Interruptions.)

Perhaps the Opposition would prefer the Bill to come before the House. They have been denied the opportunity for the rant they would have got had the Bill come before us. My information is that the Bill is not withdrawn. Over the next few weeks the Minister will consult with all the organisations and individuals who made representations on this matter, including myself. I made representations to the Minister last week. I am pleased to say the Minister was amenable to the representations made from many quarters, and it is to her credit that she is bringing forward a Bill that will reflect those representations.

Regarding No. 1, the Customs and Excise (Mutual Assistance) Act, 2001 (Commencement) Order, it would be interesting to hear the contributions to the debate if we did agree to actually take it with debate.

It is hard to see.

I do not see any useful purpose in debating matters that have already been debated by committees of the House.

The groups should be advised.

It is not my intention to accede to this request. I take Senator O'Toole's point that each of these matters should be taken on a case by case basis, and where they are sufficiently important they should be debated. I do not think that is required in this instance.

Regarding the matter of the love bombing by the British and Irish aristocracy raised by Senator Norris—

I did not mention it at all.

Pardon me, by Senator O'Toole. I am all in favour of this provided it is on a reciprocal basis, that we can love bomb in return.

Does the Deputy Leader agree they should have right of audience in the House?

That matter should be referred to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and let the Cathaoirleach deal with it. We should congratulate that person with the characteristic Irish name, Lord Clifton Hugh Lancelot de Verdon Wrottesley, for coming fourth in the skeleton event. The main benefit of all of this is that it has brought Mr. Hickey out. He would certainly win a gold medal in any competition for lack of diplomacy. We should congratulate the competitor on what was a singular achievement that we can be proud of.

Senator Costello raised the matter of interpretation. I have dealt with that. Ultimately it is a matter for the courts. He is right about the waste management strategy and the Waste Management (Amendment) Bill, 2001. It would be useful for the Minister to come before the House and debate these issues, and I shall see what can be done about that.

I agree very strongly with Senators O'Brien and Burke about the very high costs of insurance, particularly for young motorists and for business, given the rising cost of public liability premiums. It might be appropriate to discuss these issues during the debate on the Finance Bill if time cannot otherwise be made available.

Senator Norris referred to the Abbey Theatre and I welcome the fact that, irrespective of where it will be situated, a new theatre will be built. It is appropriate that the new theatre will be built on the current site. However, that is a matter of some debate. We will see what can be done in terms of inviting the Minister to come before the House to discuss this issue.

I agree with Senator Ó Murchú on the matter of international affairs and his observations about President Bush's visit to South Korea. Perhaps the Senator's request for a debate could be married with that made yesterday by Senator Lanigan for a debate on the Middle East. The best way to deal with these issues might be to have a wide-ranging debate on international affairs with the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Senator Jackman raised the issue of super vision in schools. I understand that there will be sufficient personnel available to—

That is not the point.

—provide cover in this regard. However, I accept that education is extremely important. Senator Quill also raised this matter yesterday and referred to the sciences, mathematics, etc. We will see what can be done to hold a debate on education if legislation in that area is not forthcoming in the meantime.

Senator Lanigan referred to the ISEQ index. I do not know what control, other than in a general regulatory sense, we have over that index. Insurance policies and pension funds are affected by investment decisions. I understand, however, that the weighting of these funds in terms of their investment in the Irish market is quite small, particularly since the advent of the euro which has led, more or less, to the development of a European fund market. The events involving Elan have been raised on numerous occasions, most recently by Senator Costello, and I accept that these have a bearing on what occurs in the market. I am of the opinion, however, that the degree to which we can influence investment decisions in respect of some of these funds is questionable.

I believe I have dealt with most of the issues raised. If there is anything outstanding I can return to deal with it if the relevant Member wishes to raise it again.

Senator Norris has moved an amendment to the Order of Business to the effect that No. 1 be taken with debate. Is the amendment being pressed?

Amendment put.

Burke, Paddy.Coogan, Fintan.Costello, Joe.Cregan, Denis (Dino).Doyle, Joe.Henry, Mary.Jackman, Mary.

Keogh, Helen.Manning, Maurice.Norris, David.O'Meara, Kathleen.O'Toole, Joe.Ross, Shane.

Níl

Bohan, Eddie.Bonner, Enda.Callanan, Peter.Cregan, John.Dardis, John.Farrell, Willie.Fitzgerald, Liam.Fitzpatrick, Dermot.Kett, Tony.Kiely, Rory.

Lanigan, Mick.Leonard, Ann.Lydon, Don.Moylan, Pat.O'Brien, Francis.Ó Fearghail, Seán.Ó Murchú, Labhrás.Quill, Máirín.Walsh, Jim.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Norris and Ross; Níl, Senators Dardis and Farrell.
Amendment declared lost.
Order of Business agreed to.
Top
Share