The Order of Business is No. 1, motion referring proposals for discussion by the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights. The subject matter comprises three proposals concerning measures to combat corruption in the private sector between EU member states; pre-trial orders which will enable authorities quickly to secure evidence or seize assets which might otherwise be easily moved or destroyed, whereby the judicial authority in the executive member state will recognise and execute the foreign order in the same way as a domestic freezing order; and provisions of the 1995 convention on simplified extradition procedures between the member states of the European Union and Iceland and Norway, in respect of which a similar motion is also being moved today in the Dáil. The business ordered also includes No. 2, Unclaimed Life Assurance Policies Bill 2002 – Committee Stage (resumed) and Remaining Stages, to conclude not later than 1.30 p.m – there is only one amendment remaining to be dealt with on Committee Stage and, although we do not know for certain as the Bill produced a very lively debate yesterday, Report and Final Stages may conclude before 1.30 p.m.; and No. 3, Protection of the Environment Bill 2003 – Second Stage (resumed) to be taken at the conclusion of No. 2 or at 1.30 p.m. if the debate on No. 2 has not concluded. There was much interest last week in the Protection of the Environment Bill and I was asked to bring it back to the House for further debate.
Order of Business.
I join other Senators who yesterday called for a debate on Northern Ireland at some stage over the next week or so. The two Governments have clearly taken a joint position in trying to persuade the pro-Agreement parties to move forward in order that the remaining parts of the Agreement can be implemented. A seismic shift is required on the part of one of the parties, in particular, to ensure it can go back into government with the other parties. It would be useful if the Leader could organise a debate in the latter part of next week with the Minister for Foreign Affairs. We have three weeks in which to get this matter right. It is possibly the last chance to move on all the outstanding issues before the deadline for possible Assembly elections in May.
There is unity of purpose on all sides of the House in seeking to ensure the issue is advanced and that the Government has our support in the matter. However, the House should express a view on the issue in advance of a final decision being taken by the parties in Northern Ireland. Three weeks is a short period. Many views could be expressed on all sides of the House that would help both Governments in finally resolving the matter.
I support last week's call for a debate on competition policy by Senator O'Toole, who referred to the number of inspectors in the Competition Authority. There is a role for the Competition Authority and the Director of Consumer Affairs in investigating the massive price hikes that have taken place. Considerable powers are delegated to these outside authorities and we must ensure they have the resources to do their jobs and bring prosecutions where evidence of price fixing is available. I would welcome a debate on this issue.
At a time when Government is slow to look at issues like price controls or involving itself in that area, the only other device we have is the Competition Authority. There are now criminal investigations in this area, but the authority does not have sufficient resources. Money raised by the CAB should be used to fund investigations by the Competition Authority, which has only three detectives to cover the entire country. This is a bad joke and the cartels are running rings around the authority's operatives. There are no party political views on this.
I wish to raise a technical point on the issues that are to be taken without debate today. We have agreed, as a matter of course, that matters referred to a committee should be debated there in order to make the business of the House more efficient. It is also understood that when matters are discussed at committees they return to the House unless they have been completely disposed of. For example, committees consider European directives and may seek advice from the relevant Department. These directives circulate internally, but no one hears about them. I am concerned that a year from now we will hear of directives that have been passed by the Oireachtas of which Members were not aware.
If something requires only technical discussion by a committee its members should report to the House that it does not require further discussion. This would allow someone to raise an issue if he or she so desired. There should be closure on these issues, which is not the case at present. Perhaps the Committee on Procedures and Privileges will look at this matter.
The House should have a debate on agriculture.
The House debated a motion on agriculture last evening.
I am glad the Cathaoirleach mentioned that. Agriculture was on the agenda last evening and a few of us made a serious attempt to discuss it.
We had a debate on this last evening.
I am asking for a debate on agriculture where Members from both sides do not avoid the issues by complaining about Ministers for Agriculture and Food, whether current of previous. I think the Ministers for Agriculture and Food over the past 15 years have done their best. We should try to have a debate on agriculture where people would be obliged to give their views on the issues and not call one another names.
The Senator will have to bring his bata mór to class.
I know I embarrassed people by what I said, but I did not mean to do that.
Does the Senator have a question on the Order of Business?
Had John Dillon attended last night's debate he would rush back into partnership because that is where his friends are.
We await a report from either the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment or the Department of Finance. There is a strong possibility that it will make a proposal for the demutualisation of building societies. The House should have a debate on this before the Government takes any decision. We should seek to protect the nature of mutualisation where it still exists. People seeking loans from building societies should be assured that they are dealing with a mutual society that will look after their business, rather than with profiteers.
The Order of Business is agreed. Will the Leader ask the relevant Minister provide more detail about the group comprising Government, trade union and employer representatives that has been established to look at the causes of inflation and strategies to combat it? In light of widespread concern about the pace of inflation, overpricing and profiteering, Members would be interested in studying the work of this group. While I do not know when its report is due, the relevant Minister should make it available at the earliest possible opportunity. Measures have to be taken to combat the overpricing and profiteering that has gone on in the past year.
Will the Leader arrange a debate on the developments at European level on a European constitution? Monumental proposals on the future of Europe are being made. With our experiences of the Nice treaty referenda we know it is extremely important to keep politicians and the public informed. The Seanad has a particular role to play in this.
I hope the Leader will arrange for a debate on human rights at an early date. In an atmosphere of war, individual human rights issues tend to get lost and are not covered in the media. Members often try to raise such issues on the Order of Business when, perhaps, it is not appropriate to do so. Such issues include the fact that hundreds of thousands of people around the world may die from starvation in the near future, that hundreds of thousands more will die from AIDS in Africa, that there are difficulties in North Korea and that there is an ongoing court case in Colombia. We had an in-depth discussion of human rights issues in the lifetime of the previous Seanad and I would welcome a similar debate soon.
A Fine Gael-led Government introduced the Freedom of Information Act in 1997. Yesterday, the Taoiseach confirmed there would be a one-sided review of this Act and I understand the Ombudsman was not consulted on this. It is important that we debate this issue. The Act has served the interests of the State very well.
The EU has found the €20 fee for making a submission on planning applications to be illegal. Will refunds be made to those that paid this fee? It is important that we have a debate on it.
Ireland has had a very proud record in promoting human rights. Almost every European leader has enunciated a policy on the crisis over Iraq. Ireland has not yet done so and it is important that the Taoiseach makes an urgent statement on this matter.
Will the Leader invite the former Attorney General, president of the Progressive Democrats and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, to the House to inform us when he intends recruiting the 2,000 gardaí promised in the programme for Government? Numerous calls have been made in the House, not least by Senator Terry, for a debate on the frightening increase in crime levels. Anyone who listened to Marian Finucane's radio programme over the past two mornings will have been appalled by the reality of the increase in crime figures. It would be opportune if the Minister, Deputy McDowell, could come before the House to inform us when he will begin recruiting these 2,000 gardaí.
I am sure the Leader did not intend yesterday to impugn the honour of a good citizen, but she inadvertently or otherwise misled the House. I invite her to correct the record—
Yesterday's business cannot be discussed.
This is under the appropriate Standing Order.
I thought the Senator and the Leader were friends.
Yes, he is my new best friend.
I thank the Leader very much.
Does the Senator have a question for the Leader?
I might have to examine my conscience.
Has the Senator a question for the Leader?
I have.
The Senator should ask it.
The Leader referred to the man in question as being sexist. I think she probably meant ageist. It is obvious—
Has the Senator a question for the Leader?
I have.
The Senator should ask the question.
I am coming to it. I invite the Leader—
The Senator is a very bashful suitor.
The Senator should not comment on that matter and should ask his question instead.
The man in question was referring to relocation grants regardless of age and, with respect—
Has the Senator a question for the Leader?
I have, and it is under the appropriate Standing Order. I invite the Leader to correct the record because she wronged—
That is not a question. I call Senator Tuffy.
—this honourable gentleman and she is aware of that herself.
Will the Leader organise a comprehensive debate on the issue of housing? We should examine the needs of older people in terms of sheltered housing, housing for returning emigrants, affordable and council housing and housing for single people. We are not delivering on our housing programmes. Even within current Government funding, local authorities are not delivering as much as they should and we need to see how we can address the problem of delivery. Will the latest proposals mooted under the partnership talks concerning more housing be just another announcement or will they be delivered upon? These are the issues we need to examine.
This House has lost the run of itself. Like Senator O'Toole, who last night could not vote because of the lack of dignity, I could not even come into the House—
That is not appropriate to the Order of Business. Has the Senator a question for the Leader?
I have several.
The Senator should ask them.
I convey my congratulations on the independence breaking out on the Fianna Fáil benches.
That is not a question. The Senator should ask a question of the Leader of the House.
Is it possible to have a debate on this so-called partnership agreement when it is finally signed and sealed?
Will the Senator support it?
I will not support it. I would particularly like a debate on what is called the anti-inflation package. It was produced today and is complete nonsense. No such package exists. Instead there is a series of promises and a group has been established comprising the social partners to examine inflation and make recommendations. This partnership document will be aspirational except for the pay deal and will be a fudge. It is important that the House should have an opportunity of exposing that and not just rubber-stamping it because power has moved from this House to the so-called social partners. We must be allowed to debate the agreement critically.
I agree with Senator O'Toole that there will be a dramatic change in the status of building societies which will have an effect on a large number of people. This is an important issue and it should be debated by the House before the legislation is published. I do not agree with Senator O'Toole that the mutual status of building societies will be threatened; I believe it will be protected. It is important, however, to many people with accounts in these societies throughout the land that this issue be debated in the House before the legislation is published, which I doubt will be for a year or two. We could have a real input into that legislation before it is written.
I agree with the request by Senator Tuffy for a broad debate on housing. Many Senators are members of local authorities and, while we could request further financial assistance for our housing budgets, one of the problems faced by local authorities is their inability to complete their housing programmes each year. Our housing policies are enormously conservative in terms of, among other things, design. The Minister needs to take charge of the situation. A debate on how we should plan not only the housing budgets but also the programmes in a broad way for the future would be helpful.
Senator Brian Hayes made the case for a debate on Northern Ireland and I will endeavour to arrange that either for next week or the week after. There is little time left until what we hope will be a successful conclusion to the ongoing talks.
Senators Hayes, O'Toole and others requested a debate on competition policy in order to allow views on the matter to be expressed. Senator O'Toole also requested a debate on agriculture. I could not possibly ask the Minister to come before the House next week, given that he was here yesterday.
That is fair enough. We should not ask the Minister to sit through it. We can have the debate without him.
The Leader should be allowed to continue without interruption.
Senator O'Toole also requested a debate on building societies because of the growing belief that large changes will take place in that area. He put forward an interesting point of view on the agriculture debate, namely, that we should adopt proper procedures for conducting it. If he can publish that guidebook, he is made.
Senator O'Meara agreed with Senators Brian Hayes and O'Toole about the strategy to beat inflation and requested to see the report of the group when it is published. I understand that the group in question is only being established.
The Senator also asked about the European constitution. Senator Brian Hayes asked me yesterday – outside the House – when we would proceed in this regard because the suggestion was made by several speakers some time ago. I am glad to inform Senators Hayes, O'Meara and all other Members that we have two dates and three speakers. On 4 March, the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Roche, will be in attendance and, on 12 March, Deputy John Bruton will be in attendance. We have also received an enthusiastic e-mail from Proinsias De Rossa, MEP, and it is a matter of arranging a date for him to appear. I am sure they will be very interesting and informative.
Senator Ó Murchú asked for a debate on human rights and said interesting debates on the same subject had been held in the past. I am sure that was the case. A Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs sub-committee on human rights has been established. Human rights are a noble cause but they incorporate many other matters, as the Senator knows well. If we are to have such a debate, I hope it will be broad-ranging and not take in what might seem the most obvious or currently striking matters but the full ambit of human rights.
Senator Bannon spoke about the Freedom of Information Act, a section of which calls for a review within five years. That is happening. There has been a report by civil servants. The Senator is right in saying that it appears from what is contained in the newspapers the Ombudsman is not included but he will be included in the process of updating the legislation. I made a telephone call to verify this. The Senator also asked if the €20 fee for making a submission on planning applications, which has been found to be illegal, would be paid back. We do not know but if the European Union has judged it to be illegal, the Senator can be sure that is the way it will eventually come out.
Will people be reimbursed?
Yes, I hope so. The Senator joined Senator Ó Murchú in asking about human rights.
Senator McCarthy asked when the 2,000 additional gardaí would be on the streets. The programme for Government lasts for five years. At least I hope it will.
It will be in year five if we are lucky.
The Leader should be allowed to continue without interruption.
I hope we will have five years of extra gardaí on the streets. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform will be in the House next week to deal with the Criminal Law (Insanity) Bill, which is very important legislation. Although it will not have anything to do with Senator McCarthy's request, the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Bill has reached Committee Stage in the Dáil and will be brought here quite soon. It will allow a full debate on crime levels.
Senator Tuffy wants a debate on housing, particularly the measures announced in the new programme, which will be called, Sustaining Progress.
Without farmers.
It can be got at a good price.
Senator Ross wants a debate on social partnership and Sustaining Progress. There are two SPs, which is very interesting.
There are no new ideas.
They are sure winners.
Senator Ross suggested that power had moved from Parliament to another body and asked for a debate on building societies which we can try to accommodate as quickly as possible.
Senator Bradford spoke about the need for a housing debate. We will have very interesting debates next week, of which the one on drugs will be particularly important. There is no point in me dragooning Ministers and private secretaries every day to come to the House – a great number of them have come – if we do not have speakers. I will get the Ministers but they will not keep coming if we do not have speakers, not just spokespersons, other speakers also. I ask that we all join in this.
On a point of order, four Senators wanted to speak in the debate last night but could not get in.
That is not a point of order.
It appeared to be a very riotous occasion.
Is the Leader looking at her own benches?
I do not think every debate will be as riotous.
We should discuss agriculture every week.
On a point of order, perhaps we need to paper over the cracks between Members on the Fianna Fáil side who were having a go at each other and wasted considerable time during the debate.
That is not a point of order.
Senator Mooney and Senator White—
On a point of order—
There will be no more points of order.
On a point of order, Senator O'Toole referred to issues within Fianna Fáil. I was in the Chair and, therefore, representing the Chair of the House.
That is not a point of order.
It is a very important point of order. There is an important distinction. Senator O'Toole is being somewhat mischievous and should withdraw his comment.
I ruled that Senator O'Toole's point was not a point of order.