The Order of Business is No. 1, Welfare of Greyhounds Bill 2011 — Second Stage, to be taken at the conclusion of the Order of Business and conclude not later than 5.30 p.m., with the contributions of group spokespersons not to exceed ten minutes and those of all other Senators not to exceed eight minutes, and the Minister to be called on to reply not later than 5.20 p.m.; and No. 2, statements on the report of the interdepartmental working group on mortgage arrears, to commence at the conclusion of No. 1 and conclude not later than 7 p.m., with the contributions of Senators not to exceed five minutes in each case, and the Minister of State to be called on to reply not later than 6.55 p.m. I advise Members that business may run slightly behind schedule this afternoon, as the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, is required to answer a question in the Dáil about the flooding that occurred yesterday and last night.
Order of Business
I am pleased that we are to discuss the issue of mortgage arrears on the back of the Keane report, with which a number of us on this side of the House are disappointed. While I have nothing against the Minister of State, Deputy Hayes, I am disappointed that the Minister for Finance will not be in the House to answer questions on this issue or hear the views of Members on this side of the House who have published three Bills already to assist those in mortgage arrears. I remind the Leader and his colleagues that they saw fit to vote down the Family Home Bill 2011 which would have protected principal private residences.
I ask the Leader to urgently arrange a debate on the raid on private pensions undertaken by the Government which will take nearly €500 million from individuals who are saving for their retirement. The Leader might be aware of a report by Aon Hewitt, an eminent pension consultancy firm, which independently assessed a number of large pension schemes around the country and found that two thirds of them would be paying the levy only by reducing their members' benefits. We have discussed in the House the 10% reduction in pensions among annuitants in the Tara Mines scheme and the same has happened in the airline workers' scheme. Of the €457 million raised through this private pensions raid, the Government has decided to trouser €200 million by putting it into the Central Fund. Two thirds of pension schemes are going to reduce benefits to persons who are already retired to pay the pension levy. I am, therefore, seeking an urgent debate on the matter. I want the Government to tell me how many jobs it has created so far through initiatives such as taking people's savings to pay for VAT reductions for large organisations.
Does the Leader agree with the comments of the Minister for Justice and Equality and Defence, Deputy Alan Shatter, who in having two portfolios seems to be the most powerful person in the State, in calling into question the views of eight Attorneys General who raised serious concerns about the referendum on parliamentary investigations, concerns that I raised in the House with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Brendan Howlin? The Minister dismissed the views of the former Attorneys General as nonsense. This arrogance shown by the Minister to eight Attorneys General, appointed by different parties, is outrageous. In stark terms, it also shows the sheer arrogance shown by the Government to both constitutional referendums. In the case of the investigations referendum, it is sleepwalking the public into voting "Yes".
We are not.
Senator Darragh O'Brien to continue, without interruption.
That is exactly what the Government is doing. I raised grave concerns with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, when the investigations referendum Bill was presented to the House, none of which has been answered. The Government has not campaigned for this referendum.
It is not the Government's fault. There is a presidential election.
Senator Darragh O'Brien to continue, without interruption.
I remind Members opposite again, as I did last week during the Private Members' motion on barrack closures, that they are in government now.
We are, thank God.
These two referendums have been proposed by the Government but they are not even campaigning for them.
We certainly are.
Senator Noone should desist. Senator Darragh O'Brien to continue, without interruption.
In front of the people is the investigations referendum, the single biggest change to civil liberties and the Constitution since 1937. This referendum is flawed and rushed legislation.
Is the Senator looking for a debate about this issue?
Is the Senator voting "Yes" or "No"?
I propose an amendment to the Order of Business that Deputy Shatter, the Minister for Justice and Equality and the Minister for Defence, the most powerful man in the Government, see fit to come into the Houses and answer the charges he has laid against eight Attorneys General. He simply dismissed them in an out-of-hand and arrogant fashion which reflects the arrogant fashion in which the Government——
Arrogance. Senator Darragh O'Brien should not talk to us about arrogance.
Senator Noone should desist.
If the Senator does not like it, be quiet. Members opposite know they are sleepwalking the public into making the single biggest change——
We are not.
Senator Darragh O'Brien's time is up.
——which will mean people can be brought into the investigations committee, on which I serve, with the committee deciding whether they are entitled to legal representation. The committee can make findings of fact——
The Senator can raise those matters in a debate.
——against people who may have been vindicated in the courts. I propose an amendment to the Order of Business, that the Minister for Justice and Equality and Defence, Deputy Shatter——
The same person holds both portfolios.
——who should not be holding both portfolios, a concern we raised previously, come to the House to explain, perhaps to his colleagues opposite whose parties are in government, what the referendum is about.
We over here know full well what this referendum is about.
I call Senator Bacik.
Members opposite are proponents of this referendum——
Senator Darragh O'Brien is over his time. I have called Senator Bacik.
——which has been proposed by the Government and they should explain to the public what they are trying to do with this referendum. I propose an amendment to the Order of Business that the Minister, Deputy Shatter, be brought into the House today to discuss the serious concerns that my colleagues and I raised with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, on the investigations referendum.
One defiant person. Two in one.
I am delighted Senator Darragh O'Brien raised the issue of the referendum on Oireachtas inquiries, one which I also want to raise. It is interesting because he does not sound like he was speaking about the same referendum we debated in the House for a full——
I took that Bill for the Opposition and was here for four hours.
Senator Darragh O'Brien has just spoken.
As Senator Darragh O'Brien said, we had a four hour debate on the Bill. All parties supported the referendum.
With grave reservations.
Senator Bacik to continue, without interruption.
During the debate on the referendum, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, answered comprehensively the questions we raised. I am one of the few people who have read all the heads of the Bill that accompanied it and the fifth report of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Constitution.
I have read both documents.
I remind Members opposite——
Is the Minister, Deputy Shatter, coming to the House today?
——that 12 months ago the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Constitution invited submissions from members of the public on how to address the precise issue of the Abbeylara judgment.
Do you have a question for the Leader?
Senator Darragh O'Brien should put his questions through the Chair.
Senators should speak through the Chair.
Will the Leader organise a proper debate on political reform and accountability of the Executive, following what I very much hope will be the successful passing of the referendum on Thursday? Despite being a member of the legal profession, I am fully supportive of this referendum precisely because——
Does Senator Bacik support the comments made by the Minister, Deputy Shatter, about eight former Attorneys General?
Please allow Senator Bacik to speak without interruption.
Does Senator Bacik support the comments made yesterday by the Minister, Deputy Shatter?
The Senator should desist.
I respected Senator Darragh O'Brien's contribution earlier. I am fully supportive of this referendum precisely because I believe this referendum will involve a rebalancing of power away from the Judiciary and towards the elected representatives of the people. As we said during the full debate on the referendum, which all Members present then supported, this is about placing trust back in elected representatives to conduct fact-finding inquiries. We already have, under the 1997 legislation
Does the Senator support what the Minister, Deputy Shatter, said yesterday?
May I finish?
Could we hear Senator Bacik without interruption, please?
Under 1997 legislation, the Oireachtas committees already have power to compel witnesses to attend. There is immense scaremongering by my learned friends in the legal profession——
We are not discussing it now, unless it is decided to do so by the House. Does Senator Bacik have a question for the Leader?
Let us have the Minister, Deputy Shatter, before the House today.
I certainly do not agree——
Does Senator Bacik support what he stated about the Attorneys General?
I ask Senator Darragh O'Brien to desist. Does Senator Bacik have a question for the Leader?
I call for a debate in which we can fully discuss the issues of political reform and how we implement the referendum. In response to Senator Darragh O'Brien's question on the Attorneys General, I do not share their interpretation of the Constitution——
Does the Senator agree with what the Minister, Deputy Alan Shatter, said about the Attorneys General?
I will not use the same language that the Minister used but I will state this——
The Senator does not support him. At least she is honest.
Let Senator Bacik speak.
It is the job of Attorneys General——
Through the Chair, please.
I have not had a chance to make a point, with respect. As Senator Darragh O'Brien knows, Attorneys General must be cautious and conservative——
I wish the Minister was cautious and conservative in his remarks.
——in their interpretation of the Constitution and of the law. This would colour any advice, recommendation or interpretation they give and I do not share their interpretation.
It was outrageous and Senator Bacik knows it.
I second the amendment to the Order of Business proposed by Senator Darragh O'Brien. I am very glad he has raised this issue. The Leader mentioned that the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, was required to answer a question before the Dáil. The Ministers, Deputies Shatter and Rabbitte, should also be required to answer a question before the Dáil and the Seanad as to why have they contributed to the debasing of public debate by the manner in which they have conducted their argumentation on these referendums. I listened to the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, debating with Noel Whelan on the issue and I heard the extraordinary comments made last night by the Minister, Deputy Shatter. What characterised both is that they have sought to play the man and not the ball. They seek to cover up the fact they have very weak arguments on the substance and merits of their referendum proposals and instead attribute motivation to those who oppose the referendum, suggesting for example they are out to protect the patch of tribunal lawyers. This is unworthy of the Government and if they display to the questions this worrying attitude to power and politics-
I listened to the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, debating with Noel Whelan on the issue and I heard the extraordinary comments made last night by the Minister, Deputy Shatter. What characterised both is that they have sought to play the man and not the ball. They seek to cover up the fact they have very weak arguments on the substance and merits of their referendum proposals and instead attribute motivation to those who oppose the referendum, suggesting for example they are out to protect the patch of tribunal lawyers. This is unworthy of the Government and if they display to the questions this worrying attitude to power and politics——
This is a point the Senator can make during the debate.
I am asking the Leader a question. I am calling for these gentlemen to come before the House and explain themselves because they are doing something very serious. They propose a referendum in which sweeping powers will be allowed to politicians to investigate the conduct of other persons. We see the type of unreasonable judgmental comments they themselves are capable of making. It is quite unworthy of them. When one considers that academic lawyers — people who do not stand to gain from the tribunals or any other system and people like myself who focus on politics rather than on the law — making arguments on their merits, the least they could do is try to debate the issue on its merits instead of attacking people and making snivelling little allegations about people's motivation. It is very unstatesmanlike and raises questions about the reactionary approach of the Government to people who oppose its agenda.
If a few more people opposed Fianna Fáil a few years ago, there would be a lot——
Will the Minister, Deputy Shatter, confirm whether what I heard is true, namely, that contact was made either by him or on his behalf with the Bar Council to try to warn it against coming out against the referendum on Oireachtas committee inquiries and threatening that if it did come out against it, it might go to its disadvantage as it seeks to amend the forthcoming Legal Services Regulation Bill?
Bully boy.
If this happened it is truly a scandal and I propose to ask this question directly of the Minister, Deputy Shatter——
Who suggested that?
——if and when he comes before the House.
That is outrageous.
We can say what we like about the two referendums but certainly I agree the media has focused too much on the presidential election to the detriment of coverage of the two referendums, and this must be taken into account. I have done much campaigning for the referenda and in the presidential election in recent weeks——
Not very successfully.
Senator Healy Eames to continue, without interruption.
Senator Healy Eames should have stayed at home.
I have learned much, including that this House needs to pursue solutions for genuine issues bothering and affecting people's lives. One of these is mortgages, which I am delighted we will debate this afternoon. Another is the serious issue of unemployment. Almost half of the total number unemployed, or 185,000 people, have been out of work for more than one year and are now classified as long-term unemployed. This is a serious structural issue for society, with damning social, personal and economic repercussions.
I have a proposal which I ask the Leader to present to the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Joan Burton, namely, that she immediately consider the provision of a voluntary part-time work programme to enable people to work for social welfare payments. I have evidence that there is a demand for such a programme. Through my office and the various agencies involved, I have received requests from unemployed solicitors, accountants and architects to avail of appropriate opportunities to carry out fulfilling work in return for social welfare payments. This is a no-brainer when people want to work. If further evidence is needed, when Fr. Seán Healy discussed the EU 2020 strategy with the Joint Committee on European Union Affairs last week, he presented a proposal to put 100,000 people to work on a voluntary basis while receiving the social welfare allowance plus €20 a week, at a total cost to the Exchequer of €170 million. I urge the Leader to present this proposal to the Minister and, more importantly, invite her to discuss it in the House. We cannot let the people or the spirit of the nation die. We cannot allow Australia to rob us of our people. The Celtic tiger proved that people wanted to work and they are willing to work for their social welfare allowances as part of internship and other programmes. We need to be proactive on the issue.
I support Senator Healy Eames in calling for Fr. Healy's proposal to be debated in the House. I ask the Leader to facilitate such a discussion after the break because such a debate would be worthwhile in allowing good ideas to be suggested.
I concur with Senator Darragh O'Brien on the remarks made by the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter. Last night I received word that his comments had caused outrage. He said eight former Attorneys General had no credibility and that some of them had signed documents on Government economic policy or legal advice.
The Senator can makes these points during the debate.
Will we have a debate?
That is up to the House.
I second the motion. The Minister's attack on Mr. Dermot Gleeson was the most outrageous of all. Mr. Gleeson is a former grandee——
We are not going to discuss details and names.
Mr. Gleeson is a Fine Gael grandee.
Names again.
The party of which Mr. Gleeson is a member does not matter. We are not going to discuss an individual in the House.
The Senator should think about that.
He cannot continue to name people in the House.
Does the Senator have a question for the Leader?
I am elaborating on the point.
These are points the Senator can make during the debate.
The Minister said Mr. Gleeson was chairman of AIB at a time when that bank was lending enormous sums in doubtful circumstances.
We do not need to elaborate on these points on the Order of Business.
We do. Senator Darragh O'Brien has done us a great service by raising the issue today.
Is the Senator supporting the call for a debate on it?
On the referendum, I ask the Leader to arrange a debate on the proposed 30th amendment of the Constitution. One reason I will vote in favour is it will assist in the preservation of this House.
Well said.
The amendment clearly states each House shall have the power to conduct an inquiry. Why would one seek to abolish this House if one was going to give it the power to conduct inquiries? Why was this House not excluded if the Government was determined to abolish it?
Does the Senator have a question for the Leader?
I am voting "Yes" on Thursday because I want to preserve this House and to ensure judges' remuneration is reduced in accordance with that of everybody else. I ask the Leader——
The Senator's time is up.
Let this be the first House——
These are points the Senator can make during the debate.
——to use the amendment when it is passed.
The Senator is out of time.
We might bring Mr. Dermot Gleeson here first and question his management of AIB.
The Senator should not mention names on the Order of Business.
Let him come before this House to answer questions.
The Senator should not making such charges usuing the privilege of the House.
This is very serious. I am asking the Leader to ensure this House will be the first to use the amendment.
The Senator is as excitable as ever.
I have heard some outbursts since I became a Member of this House six months ago, but what we have heard this afternoon is rather extraordinary. If we are talking about political reform and trying to save this House, perhaps the first thing we might be able to do is abolish Senator Terry Leyden.
They have been trying to do that since 1977.
Indeed, they have.
His own party leader has been trying to do so.
I thank Senators for their votes. They are appreciated.
I support Senator Ivana Bacik's call for a full debate on constitutional reform. We have heard another extraordinary outburst from Senator Rónán Mullen. It was very ungenerous of him to suggest the Government was defending this proposal in some spiteful fashion, or putting it forward just because we thought the tribunals were costing too much money. There is no doubt that they are costing too much money. To use a rugby term, we are straightening the line in favour of the rebalancing of democracy and the elected representatives of the people. It would be good to have a proper inquiry system. I do not see the controversy. A contrived controversy is being stirred up by the Opposition. I would like to respond to Senator Darragh O'Brien's suggestion that the Government is not campaigning on the issue. It is campaigning strongly on it.
Where is it campaigning?
Perhaps if Fianna Fáil——
These points can be made during the debate.
The Cathaoirleach is quite right.
There has been no campaign.
If the entire Fianna Fáil organisation is not out campaigning for Seán Gallagher, perhaps it might put a bit of effort into this.
We are not discussing the campaign on the Order of Business.
The only guy for whom we are campaigning is David McGuinness in Dublin West.
We have had a constitution since 1937 and it has worked very well for us. If we are to tamper with it, we should do so with very delicate fingers and thoughts. We should be careful about how we do it. A clear objective of the Government side should be to say why we want these two amendments to be made. The discussion we need to have has not nearly taken place. A debate today and tomorrow would give us an opportunity to discuss it.
We have had 12 months of discussion.
Therefore, I support Senator Darragh O'Brien's call for the Minister to come to the House, although I appreciate it would be at short notice. It seems this debate has been superseded by the presidential election debate which has taken prominence from it. The vast majority of the public do not know enough about it. People have not had time to consider it. This is an occasion for us to do something.
I was going to call on the Government to do something about the weather, but it must have done something about it today because there has been a big improvement. There is something it can do on the issue of daylight hours. We will lose an hour of daylight each evening from this weekend. I know I raise this matter on a regular basis, but it is in our own hands to do something about it. If we were to use Central European Time, we would enjoy an extra hour of daylight in the evening the whole year around. This would benefit tourism, industry, education, health and society as a whole. I am not suggesting we ask others in Europe to change anything such as the times or dates on which this is done, rather I am suggesting we use Central European Time. It is interesting that Britain is giving serious consideration to this issue and I think it is planning to follow us if we move first. We should, therefore, announce that it is our intention to move to Central European Time when I think we would find the British would follow us. Clearly, it would not be an advantage for us to do it on our own if it meant Belfast and Dublin were in different time zones. It is possible to do this and the case has been made for it. There is a very strong case being made in Britain which is moving in that direction. The first Bill is coming through and it has been accepted on Second Stage. We have to give serious consideration to the matter immediately. This weekend will see another step in the wrong direction. We should make sure it is the last time we make this change.
It is in our own hands — the big hand and the little hand.
I express my support for Senator Feargal Quinn. I agree with him on this issue, on which I will try to do anything I can, which is obviously not as much as those with real power.
I would like to express my concern about the flooding that occurred yesterday and last night. We saw many examples of bravery and an off-duty garda lost his life trying to save people. I am not sure exactly where it occurred, but we cannot forget that this went on just yesterday in the city.
I was disappointed to read today that the floodgates in Sandymount were left padlocked in an open position by whoever is in charge of it. I do not understand the technicalities, but this is another example of something the city council should have controlled and should not have occurred. I would like the Leader to pass on my concerns to the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government. Perhaps he could address it when he is in the House.
The newspapers do not seem to be taking my VAT watch very seriously. Newspapers have benefitted from the VAT reduction, which was intended to increase domestic consumption and tourism. This applies to newspapers, whether they like it.
Is the Senator looking for a debate on this issue?
I want the Minister for Finance to come to the House to discuss the VAT issue. As I have issued a press release on it, the newspapers know what I am talking about. If the newspapers insist on putting up prices when VAT comes in and then moving things around to suit themselves, that is not on.
I join Senator Bacik in expressing my support for the referendum on Oireachtas inquiries.
There is an amendment to the Order of Business on the issue.
We have a proposal, but I do not agree with the way the Minister said what he said.
Those points can be made during the debate.
I would welcome the Minister in the House, because he will be able to explain, perhaps in a more measured way, what is happening. I issued a press release on this three weeks ago because I knew this would happen.
The Senator is out of time. This is not relevant.
I knew this was going to happen——
The Senator is using the time of other Senators.
We needed greater discussion on this issue and that we have not is because of the presidential election, as Senator Healy Eames said. The Opposition should welcome this, because it is——-
The Senator is out of time. I call Senator Cullinane.
I join previous Senators in passing on my condolences on the death of Garda Ciaran Jones, aged 25, from Manor Kilbride, who was killed when he was swept away while warning motorists about floods in the River Liffey in County Wicklow. We have heard many stories of bus drivers, taxi drivers and people from our emergency services who did a fantastic job last night in the face of unprecedented flooding. This House should have a discussion about the emergency plan put in place by Dublin City Council and by the emergency services. By all accounts it worked very well and it is important that we keep on top of these plans and ensure that the council and all the emergency services have the resources and the ability to deal with a crisis when it emerges. I commend those who were involved yesterday and I offer my sympathies to the family of Garda Ciaran Jones.
I would also like to offer my sympathies to the family of Deputy John Halligan, whose mother passed away. He is a fellow Oireachtas Member from my constituency.
There is a procedure for tributes. It requires a suspension of Standing Orders.
Okay. My final point is about the inquiries referendum. Given the corruption, cronyism and the brown envelope culture that we have seen from Fianna Fáil over the years, it is quite interesting that they would have a difficulty with investigations and inquiries.
The Senator's colleagues ran around the country killing people. What is he talking about?
Senator Cullinane to continue, without interruption.
I would welcome the debate because it will show up why we needed tribunals in this country in the first place. It is because of that cronyism, that culture and the brown envelope brigade that we have had tribunals. That is why we need these powers to be given to politicians——
Where is the Northern Bank money?
——in order that we can comprehensively deal with these issues. If the Senator has information on any bank property, he should contact the Garda.
Sinn Fein is the biggest fundraiser in Ireland.
Please allow Senator David Cullinane to continue, without interruption.
What Senator Darragh O'Brien cannot stomach is that his party is rotten to the core with the brown envelope culture, cronyism and everything that has been wrong with politics in this country for the past 30 years. Now he does not want accountability and scrutiny because he fears them.
Well said.
What about the old republican movement?
Please, Senator.
The strokers are back together again.
Empty vessels make the most noise.
Does the Senator have a question for the Leader?
I do and it is about the referendum. When I see that carbuncle,Mr. Michael McDowell, popping his head up again to say we are wrong, it makes me think we are doing the right thing.
There is a proposal to amend the Order of Business and what the Senator has said is completely out of order.
It is true.
Does the Senator have a question for the Leader?
Yes, I do. I welcome Senator David Cullinane's support for the proposal to amend the Constitution. In that spirit, I sympathise with him on the death of his great friend, Muammar Gaddafi.
The Senator is completely out of order.
I support the proposal to amend the Order of Business. Last week we discussed credit unions, but I ask the Leader to arrange another such debate in the light of letters sent to the Irish Financial Services Regulatory Authority in 2004. At the time Mr. John Mahony of Rathmore Credit Union warned the regulator that the granting of pre-approved bank loans to release equity and the writing to customers would result in the setting up of a tribunal ten years hence to examine how all of this had come about.
What did the Senator do about it?
That leads me to the interesting intervention made by our learned colleagues, the former Attorneys General. I will be supporting the referendum on Thursday because I believe that, like other parliaments, we should have powers to investigate. We should have confidence in ourselves to investigate those who have done wrong, the vested interests.
That is precisely the point.
Senator Mark Daly to continue, without interruption, please.
I will take three of those involved in making that statement. Mr. Peter Sutherland, in the DIRT inquiry——
We cannot discuss individuals on the Order of Business.
Okay, I will talk about them in general terms. One of them happened to be involved in the DIRT inquiry carried out by the Houses——
There is a proposal before the House to amend the Order of Business. The Senator is either supporting that proposal or he is not. He can make these points in the debate.
I am speaking in support of the proposal made. The person concerned was criticised in the last inquiry conducted by the Houses; it is no wonder, therefore, that he does not want to see powers being granted which could be used to bring him before them again.
We are not discussing personalities. Does the Senator have a question for the Leader?
Will the Leader ask the Attorney General to come before the House? We have the power to do this. I have already asked for him to attend under Standing Order 56 on a different issue. Other individuals signed the letter to the newspaper.
Is the Senator going to cast aspersions on all eight of them? Is that the way this issue will be fought out? That is the very reason we should not have parliamentary inquiries, if politicians behave like the Senator.
Does Senator Mark Daly have a question for the Leader?
Senator Rónán Mullen does not have the confidence to carry out inquiries on behalf of the public, other than people at bar counters who have a vested interest in this issue.
Does the Senator have a question for the Leader?
I am asking for an amendment to the Order of Business.
An amendment has been proposed to it. Does the Senator have a second amendment to propose?
I am supporting the amendment proposed because once again there are vested interests having another go.
Does the Senator have a question for the Leader?
They are using the Trojan horse, saying the Oireachtas would have too much power and that as a result the people should not support the proposed amendment to the Constitution.
The Senator is completely out of order.
What is proposed is done in America, England and elsewhere, yet——
I call Senator Conway. I ask Senator Daly to please resume his seat.
Mark my words — Mr. Dermot Gleeson who was chairman of AIB will appear before an Oireachtas inquiry, as he should.
I endorse everything our colleague Senator Mark Daly said. I have a serious problem with the manner in which the Referendum Commission has conducted itself throughout the campaign. It is publicly funded to run a proper campaign, but its advertisements have been pathetic in the extreme.
Does the Senator have a question for the Leader?
They are even grammatically incorrect.
I am speaking against the amendment but saying the Referendum Commission is publicly funded——
These are points that can be made during a debate.
I ask the Leader to arrange a debate on the performance of the Referendum Commission in the exercise of its duties in the information campaign on the consequences of a "Yes" or a "No" vote. If its campaign were run properly and its advertisements were professional and not pathetic, as they have been, the public would be informed as to the importance of a "Yes" vote in both referendums.
Does the Senator have a question for the Leader?
I would like to know the eight former Attorneys General who have made statements on the referendum. Has any of them voluntarily given up his State pensions?
We are not discussing this issue. Does the Senator a question for the Leader?
Yes. I am asking the Leader to arrange a proper debate on the role of the Referendum Commission and how it has conducted itself in respect of the two upcoming referendums, the amount of taxpayers' money spent on funding it, and the advertising agency used by the commission to choreograph and put together its pathetic, appalling advertisements. We need a complete review of the relevant legislation.
It could only be good to have the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter, present in the House. We were elected to this House to discuss important issues such as changes to the Constitution. It would be helpful, therefore, if the Minister attended in advance of the referendums to make our discussion worthwhile. The Referendum Commission, under the former Mr. Justice Brian McMahon, has done an excellent job, from which we should not take in any way. Unfortunately, as a result of the presidential election, the referendums have been sidelined. There is a considerable lack of knowledge about them among the public. I do not attribute ulterior motives to the Government in bringing them forward. It is possible, however, that it is an emotional reaction to experiences in this country for a number of years, but that is not the right way to consider a change to Bunreacht na hÉireann, as the emotion will eventually diminish and be diluted. However, Bunreacht na hÉireann will remain. We must bear in mind that we are dealing with something vital and fundamental that is deserving of much greater debate.
To suggest holding a certain view on the referendum on parliamentary inquiries might suggest we do not trust ourselves is not the way to approach this matter. Talking about motives is not what it is about. We should not be doing this for those who are in favour or against the proposed change. Neither is it a question about the legal profession; rather, it is about citizens. We should be representing them and reflecting their views in the House. It is not, therefore, a matter of trusting ourselves. One should bear in mind that, by their very nature, politicians have agendas. That is expected of them. There is no doubt that they have loyalties and are susceptible to lobby groups, as may be expected of them, but they are not part of the judicial system. That is where the difference lies. I do not feel comfortable about voting in the referendum on parliamentary inquiries next Thursday based on our experiences in the Oireachtas. It is a great pity the media did not play a full role. We should not blame the Government for this. I heard senior journalists admitting on radio this morning that they had not done what they should have done in this regard.
The Senator should ask a question of the Leader.
To some extent the debate has gone astray from what we are trying to achieve, that is, the importance of Bunreacht na hÉireann to the lives of the people and, above all, what we consider should be fair play and due process and all such issues. I am learning by the hour from the debates I have heard of elements of this referendum that are not clear. I hope the Minister will come into the House in the next 24 hours and debate the matter.
I was amazed at the weekend to hear about the under-17 World Cup which took place in Mexico. A total of 24 teams competed and, by the end of the tournament, 19 of the them had tested positive for angel dust. I congratulate Mexico on winning the competition. Its players did not test positive for angel dust because the team was put on a diet of fish.
Our food safety and food security are the strictest and best in Europe, if not the world. At a meeting of the Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculture, I heard that the EU, under a new agreement, will increase the level of imports of beef from the USA and Canada — these countries use hormones in their beef industries although the proposal is to import high-quality beef which is hormone free — from the 20,000 tonnes we were importing in 2009 to 48,200 tonnes by August 2012. While this may not seem a lot of beef given the size of the EU, it is more than a 100% increase, and this will continue. I realise these arrangements are a part of trade negotiations and our beef is banned from these countries because of BSE as part of a continuous trade agreement.
I call on the Leader to ask the Minister to continue to make statements on the safety and security of Irish food and to raise this matter at EU level. What is the possibility of an angel dust carcass getting in? What level of scrutiny is in place? Is one carcass in every 100 tested, is it one in every 1,000 or is every carcass tested? I call on the Leader to ask the Minister to clarify this. If there is a food scare concerning beef, no matter whether it is US, Canadian, Brazilian or Mexican, our beef industry will be in big trouble again. I call on the Leader to ensure the Minister continues to talk up the security we have in place in this country in respect of beef and the quality of our food and to ensure the greatest scrutiny continues to be applied in this country to beef imports or any food imported from outside the European Union.
I support Senator O'Neill, who has done a valuable public service in raising this issue. I support him in this regard.
Charges and counter-charges were levelled across the floor by a Member. I remind the Member that it was a Fianna Fáil-led Administration which set up the tribunals and the conclusions of those tribunals resulted in several Fianna Fáil politicians receiving jail sentences in some instances. Any suggestion that we, as a party, were reluctant in any way to expose or uncover the corruption that went on in Irish life is disproved by that point in itself.
In the charge and counter-charge, we were asked for examples. I offer the Member one example from his home county. Three men walked into a bank in Tramore. One hustled a young civil servant back into the bank, kicked him to the ground and then shot him in front of his three year old son. The sequel has unfolded in the past two months. When the party of that Member, who is a fine man and a good public representative but I am discussing policy, makes charges, then it is, as one of their people said on television last night, a case of going into murky waters making such allegations.
Does the Senator have a question for the Leader?
Within the past six weeks that party commended the getaway driver of that car on making a contribution to Irish freedom.
What is the Senator's question to the Leader?
That party's definition of a contribution to Irish freedom is killing an unarmed, innocent civil servant in front of his three year old son.
We are not discussing party politics. Does the Senator have a question for the Leader?
Perhaps Sinn Féin, which experiences collective amnesia, is attempting to encourage people to have collective amnesia about the atrocities it committed on this island in the name of Irish republicanism. Its members have some neck.
Does the Senator have a question for the Leader?
They have sullied the flag and the good name of republicanism. As someone who had to emigrate to England, I was subjected to anti-Irish feeling in Britain when they were bombing innocent people to kingdom come. They have some neck.
Does the Senator have a question for the Leader?
I hope people will reflect on that. I recommend that Senators read three articles in last week's Sunday Independent, which showed exactly where Sinn Féin stands. It is time its members subjected themselves to scrutiny and accountability. How dare they?
The Senator's time has elapsed. I call Senator Mullins.
I support the call to bring the Minister for Justice and Equality before the House. As Senator Ó Murchú noted, serious issues are continually emerging on the referendum and I strongly support the view, in the interests of the Government's proposals, that the relevant Ministers come before the House to clarify the precise implications of the two referendums.
I support the innovative proposal made by Senator Healy Eames that the House debate with the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Joan Burton, at the earliest opportunity, the ideas proposed by Fr. Seán Healy in respect of people who wish to work in lieu of receiving their social welfare payment and a small additional consideration. The country is on its knees and many of our young people our emigrating. At such a time, we must examine every possible innovative idea to return people to work and restore pride in our country.
In light of the severe flooding in Dublin last night and the possibility of severe weather conditions returning in the coming months, I ask the Leader to arrange a debate with the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Phil Hogan, on the preparedness of his Department and local authorities for severe weather conditions. Last night's events serve as a warning which we must heed. I join other Senators in offering sympathy to the family of Garda Jones and the lady who regrettably lost her life in Dublin city centre last night. Although weather alerts were in place last night, we need to be much better prepared for sudden severe weather conditions. It would be appropriate for the Minister to outline to the Seanad the level of preparedness for flooding and the severe frost and ice we experienced last winter. I ask the Leader to arrange such a debate.
I will try to be balanced in my response in support of the proposal to amend the Order of Business made by Senator Darragh O'Brien. It is my experience in various constituencies that 80% of people do not know what the referendum on increasing the powers of the Oireachtas is about. The referendum on judges' pay is fairly clear. While it is easy to blame the Referendum Commission for the confusion surrounding the second referendum, it would be unfair to do so given that the commission was given minimum notice. The referendum has been rushed. As a former Chairman of two Oireachtas committees and someone who was involved in the Abbeylara sub-committee and a second, similar sub-committee, I support the proposal of providing additional powers for Oireachtas committees. Nevertheless, members of the public are not aware of the issues on which they will vote and while most of them are ignorant of the merits and salient features of the proposal, they are aware of its demerits. At best, they are confused and many of them accept that the issue is a confusing one.
I suggested previously in respect of a proposed referendum on children's rights that referendums on serious matters should be held on their own. I am not being political when I say it is a mistake that the referendum on Oireachtas committees is being held on the same day as the presidential vote. The presidential campaign by seven individuals has so focused public and media attention that they have lost sight of the real issue, which is my concern. Leaving the emotions and the politics aside, it might be a good thing for the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, or another Minister to attend this House to allay the fears of the public, because there are serious concerns. The amendment which proposes to increase the powers of Oireachtas committees is only a sideshow to the presidential campaign.
That is not the case.
The commission tasked with the responsibility of explaining the merits and so on of this campaign has been given little time to do this.
It has turned out to be a sideshow. Clarification should be brought to this debate because it is most confusing. I merely relate what people throughout west Cork are telling me.
Senator O'Brien, as leader of the Opposition, again raised the question of pensions. The Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, dealt comprehensively with several items in that regard in this House and the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Burton, will attend in coming weeks. When we discuss pensions we should also consider the profits of pension companies and the fees they charge. A programme on pensions was broadcast recently on RTE. While I accept that two thirds of pension funds are in deficit, the programme also highlighted the fees pension companies charge their customers, which should also be examined.
I understand the Attorney General is fully supportive of the Government's constitutional amendment proposals. Senators O'Brien, Conway, Ó Murchú, Mullen, Leyden, O'Donovan and others spoke about both referendum proposals and there were criticisms of the Referendum Commission. Members have looked for comprehensive debates on the matter. We had a four hour debate on this item on 22 September. I do not know whether it is that Members were not prepared in their contributions at the time——
That is very unfair.
——or that they wish to speak on it now, but I cannot understand it.
The Leader guillotined the debate on the motion.
There is a committee on the Constitution, of which Senator O'Donovan was a member, which invited submissions in October 2010 regarding these proposals for a referendum on this issue. People have had ample time. I understand from a recent poll that only 20% of people are undecided in regard to both referendums. Members are getting very exercised over matters on which the people have decided by now, and they will indicate their support when they cast their votes next Thursday. I have the utmost confidence, therefore, in the people being well informed on any matter.
They are not well informed.
This House certainly had sufficient time and the public were invited——
I reiterate that people were invited in October 2010 to make submissions. The matter has been dealt with comprehensively and I have no intention of having a further debate——
Why not? What harm would there be?
——two days before the actual referendum.
Why could there not be an open debate on this? It makes no sense.
The Leader to continue, without interruption.
Senator Healy Eames mentioned the need for concrete proposals to deal with the mortgage crisis. I hope there will be such proposals when the House discusses that matter and the job situation. The Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Burton, will attend the House on 17 November for a question and answer session and I am sure there will be concrete proposals and suggestions from Members regarding the issue of unemployment. When the Minister comes before the House, she will address that and other matters relating to social protection.
Senator Feargal Quinn has raised the issue of daylight saving time and the possibility of a switch to Central European Time on numerous occasions during my time in the Seanad. I will certainly bring the matter to the attention of the appropriate Minister. The Senator's suggestion seems laudable and I will try to discover what is the thinking of the Government on it.
Perhaps we might switch to central European weather also.
Senator Catherine Noone referred to yesterday's flooding in the capital and throughout the country which caused great hardship for many. I am sure all Members wish to extend sympathy to the families of Garda Ciaran Jones and the woman from the Philippines who lost their lives in the floods.
Senator Michael Mullins referred to the preparedness of local authorities to deal with the effects of winter weather. In the next week or two the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Phil Hogan, will come before the House. The Senator can address his concerns about this matter to the Minister at that time.
Senator Pat O'Neill made an important point on food safety, particularly in the context of the importation of beef from other countries. Like Senator Paschal Mooney, I agree that we should take every opportunity to highlight the safety of Irish beef. I will raise this matter with the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine.
I must inform Senator Mooney that I am well aware of the atrocity which took place in Tramore many years ago. I refer to the murder, in front of his three year old son, of a man who was on holiday in the town at the time.
As stated, I do not propose to accept the amendment proposed to the Order of Business.
Senator Darragh O'Brien has proposed an amendment to the Order of Business: "That a debate with the Minister for Justice and Equality and Defence on the forthcoming referendum on the power of the Oireachtas to conduct inquiries be taken today." Is the amendment being pressed?
Tá
- Daly, Mark.
- Leyden, Terry.
- MacSharry, Marc.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Mullen, Rónán.
- Ó Domhnaill, Brian.
- Ó Murchú, Labhrás.
- O'Brien, Darragh.
- O'Donovan, Denis.
- Power, Averil.
- Quinn, Feargal.
- van Turnhout, Jillian.
- Wilson, Diarmuid.
Níl
- Bacik, Ivana.
- Barrett, Sean D.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Brennan, Terry.
- Burke, Colm.
- Clune, Deirdre.
- Coghlan, Eamonn.
- Comiskey, Michael.
- Conway, Martin.
- Cullinane, David.
- Cummins, Maurice.
- D'Arcy, Jim.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Gilroy, John.
- Hayden, Aideen.
- Healy Eames, Fidelma.
- Higgins, Lorraine.
- Kelly, John.
- Landy, Denis.
- Moloney, Marie.
- Moran, Mary.
- Mulcahy, Tony.
- Mullins, Michael.
- Noone, Catherine.
- O'Neill, Pat.
- Reilly, Kathryn.
- Whelan, John.
Tá
- Bacik, Ivana.
- Barrett, Sean D.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Brennan, Terry.
- Burke, Colm.
- Clune, Deirdre.
- Coghlan, Eamonn.
- Comiskey, Michael.
- Conway, Martin.
- Cullinane, David.
- Cummins, Maurice.
- D'Arcy, Jim.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Gilroy, John.
- Hayden, Aideen.
- Healy Eames, Fidelma.
- Higgins, Lorraine.
- Kelly, John.
- Landy, Denis.
- Moloney, Marie.
- Moran, Mary.
- Mulcahy, Tony.
- Mullins, Michael.
- Noone, Catherine.
- O'Neill, Pat.
- Quinn, Feargal.
- Reilly, Kathryn.
- van Turnhout, Jillian.
- Whelan, John.
Níl
- Daly, Mark.
- Leyden, Terry.
- MacSharry, Marc.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Mullen, Rónán.
- Ó Domhnaill, Brian.
- Ó Murchú, Labhrás.
- O'Brien, Darragh.
- O'Donovan, Denis.
- Power, Averil.
- Wilson, Diarmuid.