It is proposed to take item No. 2 until 6 p.m. There will be a sos from 6 p.m. until 6.30 p.m., and from 6.30 until 8 p.m. the Fianna Fáil Private Members' Motion, item No. 82, will be taken. From 8 p.m. to not later than 9.30 p.m. item No. 2 will be resumed.
Order of Business.
May I ask the Leader of the House to clarify the situation about the length of speeches on the statements under item No. 2. I understand there was a suggestion that speakers should be confined to 15 minutes but my colleagues and I believe that on such a wide-ranging subject, covering very important legislation dealing with the European Council, 15 minutes is totally inadequate. Therefore, we respectfully suggest that it should be either left open or at least extended to 30 minutes. One understands that some Members will not need that length of time but some latitude is called for and I would ask the Leader of the House to grant that.
I wish to raise again the matter I raised on the Order of Business last week, that is, an outline of the programme of legislation which it is proposed by Government to initiate in this House. I stress the words "to initiate in this House". I particularly plead with the Leader of the House not to list for us legislation which will be arriving to us secondhand from the other House. I would appreciate a list of the legislation which will be initiated in this House in this term.
There is the other issue which I raised with the Leader of the House recently and which he assured me he would be able to respond to by today, that is, my request for a debate on the crisis in the education service. We have touched on many aspects of Irish life over the last number of weeks. We are discussing Europe today but there are aspects of Ireland which still need to be discussed and I would appeal for a discussion on that point as well.
While we are in the business of congratulating here today I would like to congratulate our new Tánaiste, Deputy Wilson, and say that I am particularly pleased because he held the office which I hold in my union, the ASTI. He was President of that Association and served it with distinction as a secondary teacher. I would also like to support Senator O'Toole's request to the Leader of the House to make time available for a debate on education. There is a crisis in education and a whole range of areas need to be addressed. It is a matter that merits discussion in this House and I would like to ask the Leader to consider making time available at an early opportunity.
The European Economic and Monetary Union and indeed European Political Union will have profound effects on this country and I suggest that the Oireachtas has not been particularly vigilant in assessing decisions of the European Communities; indeed, the whole question of democratic accountability will need to be looked at. I am suggesting that item No. 2 is extremely important for this country, that the Oireachtas has not been playing its full role in scrutinising decisions of the EC and that adequate time should be made available to all those Senators who wish to discuss it. If the list of speakers is not completed tonight, time should be made available for further discussion either tomorrow or next week, because the matter has profound implications for this country.
I support Senator Haughey's remarks and appreciate them, but I respectfully suggest that the formation of this foreign affairs committee would be the way to solve this problem in the long term. Having said that, I rose to ask the Leader of the House, regarding item No. 1 on the Order Paper when he proposes to move the Second Stage of the Altamont Bill.
We have had some time on our hands in this House since July. We did not sit last week and the previous week we sat for a very short time. Will the Leader of the House say when we will get some legislation? There seems to be an extraordinary mix-up in the priorities as to where legislation goes first. I plead with the Leader of the House to go to the Government and ask them, "for God's sake give us some legislation which is meaningful, that will be introduced in this House this week or next week so that all legislation does not go first to the other House". What happens every session, what happened in the summer and what has happened year after year is that too much legislation goes to the Dáil first and it all comes here in a rush just before Christmas and we have to send Bills through by guillotine, late sittings and all sorts of disorganised order of the House late in the day. It would be far better if we got legislation before the Dáil in certain cases, and we do justice to it and not rush it through as happened at the end of the last session.
I would also like to endorse what Senator Costello said and support the plea for a debate on education. I am not sure that there is any reason why we should not sit on a Tuesday to debate special subjects like education or other subjects which do not come under the heading of legislation. We have time on our hands at the moment and such subjects should be debated, and we can sit extra days as well.
I support the request from Senators Joe O'Toole and Costello in relation to a debate on education. It is interesting that there is a high percentage of people here who are still teaching or have taught, not that I am saying that education is the domain of teachers only. Over the past 12 months the only time I have got any chance to mention education has been asking on the Order of Business whether it was a franchise for universities or whether it was items on motions on the Adjournment.
(Interruptions.)
Senator Jackman, without interruption.
I do not know why people pre-empt what I have to say. I started at the Order of Business, notices of motion, and I think we had one Private Members' debate. That is not adequate.
Has the Senator a question to the Leader of the House?
Yes. First of all, I have to express the fact that we have had little time, therefore it is opportune to ask for some time to be made available for quite a discussion on education. I suggest that the Seanad is the ideal forum for such a debate.
Ní fhéadar an bhfuil aon scéal fós faoin chóras aistriúcháin. Tá an mhoill ag dul i méid ó lá go lá agus táim ag súil go dtarlóidh rud éigin sar a gcaillfear ar fad an teanga ón Teach seo.
I ask the Leader of the House, in support of my colleagues, what has happened. I have spent long, unreported — so that I cannot be accused of any publicity seeking — but very fruitful days in this House dealing with Committee Stages of legislation introduced by the Government. It seems to me that that flow of legislation introduced in this House has decreased almost to a trickle. It used to be major legislation as in the form of the Companies Bill, the Insurance Bill, and then at an earlier stage, the Status of Children Bill. We have had major substantive legislation which was central to the affairs of this country dealt with in this House with considerable attention by both Government and Members on both sides of the House. Why it is that, as legislation apparently continues to back up more and mroe in the other House, to the extent that legislation passed in this House upwards of a year ago, still has not managed to get through there and legislation continues to back up in the other House which could be introduced here. We are capable of dealing with legislation in a responsible, intelligent and non-partisan fashion and have done so frequently. I ask the Leader of the House if there is somebody somewhere, perhaps outside this House, who is reluctant to allow legislation of a significant nature to be introduced here. If there is I suspect it is somebody that the Leader of the House has more influence over than I have, and I suggest that he deal with him and insist that this House be treated with the dignity it deserves.
I would also like to draw your attention, Sir, to the report of the last sitting of this House in which remarks which you said — and I accept your word — you did not hear are reported in the Official Report. May I suggest that time be made available to Senator McCarthy on this occasion to stand up, do the proper thing, withdraw the remarks and have the record corrected? I sincerely hope, Sir, that whatever ailment afflicted your hearing a fortnight ago has now healed up and that your hearing is back to its usual precision.
Senator, I want to point out to you that I do not accept that it forms the better part of you to make such a remark to me.
May I repeat that Senator McCarthy did say that Senator Norris might get in touch with the Presidential candidate——
I will not deal retrospectively here with the business of the House today. It is a matter for the Leader of the House to reply to you. You have put the question to the Leader of the House.
I hope the Leader of the House will put that question to Senator McCarthy and ask him to be man enough to withdraw his remarks.
You have put the question to the Leader of the House and I would be grateful if you would allow him, when it comes to his turn to respond.
When businesss is ordered like item No. 2 today which is to conclude by 9.30 p.m., there should be some regulation whereby every Member who wishes to contribute to such business on the Order Paper would get an opportunity to do so. During the last session we had statements on agriculture, and while some Senators could speak for well over an hour other Senators could only speak for two minutes. Everybody should be allowed a fair opportunity to contribute. I agree with Senator McDonald and Senator Haughey in that respect.
First, as a constituency colleague, I join with Senator Costello in congratulating the newly appointed Tánaiste, the Minister for the Marine, Deputy Wilson. Secondly, I endorse very strongly the call for a debate on eduation. I put it to the Leader of the House — and I am sure that he will accommodate the House in this — that there is a continuing crisis in education and that there are grounds for a debate. Irrespective of any other issue, we have to give primacy to something like education in our deliberations.
I rose predominantly today, to call also for a special debate — because this comes within my ambit of responsibility and indeed the ambit of every Member of the House — on the still dangerously disturbed health services. There are in the health services major waiting lists for our hospitals for a range of health services. I will finish with one concrete example. I came across yesterday a child——
I cannot allow the Senator to give documentation or make a speech on the Order of Business. Have you a question for the Leader of the House?
The question to the Leader of the House is, is he willing, in the light of the very serious situation pertaining in the health services in terms of waiting lists and hospital care, to allow a special debate on the health services within the foreseeable future?
First, I would like to say that I was interested in Senator Haughey's remarks about the lack of importance given to the question of developments within the European Community and the consequent urgency of taking this today with some seriousness. I welcome his remarks but I am afraid, over the last few years I have seen this House treated with anything but seriousness. In fact, I have seen it treated with increasing contempt. As my distinguished colleague, Senator Brendan Ryan, has said, there are a number of gauges for this that relate directly to the ordering of business and to the Order Paper. The absence of significant legislative proposals is one. The times at which we meet are another. I recall being brought back here for ten minutes to discuss an item of legislation that benefited principally one company in this country. Today we are meeting at 4 o'clock. It would perhaps be unworthy of me to speculate as to whether there was a relationship between this and a certain athletic——
I want to remind the Senator to please direct a question or questions to the Leader of the House because you are dealing in speech-making now.
The question I am getting to is whether in the light of the pertinent remarks of Senator Haughey the Leader of the House can give us an assurance that the functioning and role of the Seanad in Irish political life will be treated from now on with a renewed respect because it is not being treated with respect at the moment. I would like simply to refer to what Senator Ryan said. I am not looking for any remarks to be withdrawn. I do, however, sympathise with the holders of office in this State because it seems to me that there is a development of auricolitis politicos which affects principally the left ear, with variable but sustained deafness and affecting the Ceann Comhairle of the Dáil and the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad.
I do not know if you can apply a similar condition to the tongue in this case——
You must try.
——but if you have nothing to say, I will insist upon you confining yourself.
I wish before relationships develop to too friendly a state to propose an amendment to the Order of Business "that item No. 79 be taken third". I did signal that I would be proposing such an amendment but after consultation with my colleagues I have decided that the proposal be taken third so that even were it to be passed it would not significantly interrupt the proposed business of the House, because it is my wish to be constructive. I await this being seconded. Senator Ross has indicated that he will second if he can do so, having already spoken, Senator Upton has indicated he will do so. In any case, I would ask them, please, to articulate clearly so that they can be heard without any question of contradiction.
I rise to support Senator Rory Kiely in his remarks in relation to time. I ask the Leader of the House, to please, try to avoid the situation which we had here a fortnight ago where one Senator spoke in the statements on agriculture for well over an hour and subsequently the Acting Cathaoirleach made an appeal to other Senators to curtail their contributions, with which we tried to co-operate as best we could. I share the view that this is a very important matter on European Union and on monetary union and that adequate time should be given, but I ask the Leader of the House to see to it that we regulate our affairs in some order so that those who wish to speak can do so.
I, too, would like to point out to the Leader of the House, if he does not already know it, the importance of item No. 2. As I gauge it at this stage, we will have at most two and a quarter hours to discuss this most important item and the most important thing that is happening for this country since we joined the Community. As other Senators pointed out, we had the debate on agriculture and, of course, it was unfortunate that some of us got only five minutes while others could speak for one and a half or two hours. I would ask the Leader of the House to consider carrying over this debate into next week, because this is the single most important item we have discussed since this Seanad first met over a year ago. It would be treating the matter almost with contempt just to brush it aside in a little over two hours.
I plead with him to allow time next week to give all people a chance and to have a thorough discussion on it because we are dealing not only with economic and monetary union but with political union as well.
I would like to join in the congratulations to the Minister, Deputy Wilson on his appointment as Tániste. Coming from the neck of the woods as he does, I am delighted for him. I also would like to support Senator Rory Kiely on his mention of the amount of time given to each Senator in this House. I am not suggesting that it should be 15 minutes but an amount of time should be given to each Senator and I ask the Leader of the House, whether it is 20 minutes or 30 minutes, that the time be shared equally between Senators and that some Senators would not be allowed to go on for over an hour or two hours, as has happened in this House quite recently, and other Senators would be reduced to five minutes.
I formally second the proposal by Senator Norris that item 79 be taken third. I would also like to say that I have a great deal of sympathy with Senator Rory Kiely in the predicament he found himself in last week. It is beyond my understanding as to why people find it necessary to go on and on in speeches that they make. If the Leader of the House is making the suggestion that contributions on the European Union statement be confined to 15 minutes I certainly think that is a good idea and I feel that if people make a small effort to edit what they are going to say and to think about it it should be possible to get the substance of it into 15 minutes or indeed into a shorter period of time.
This is not the first time this has arisen. We talk a great deal about ordering the affairs of the House, and criticisms are levelled from the far benches in relation to initiation of legislation. We need to look at the note in our own eye. I firmly believe — and I am casting no aspersions on anybody on any side of the House — if you cannot come up with an idea or a sequence of ideas on legislation in 15 minutes then you are not really worth listening to beyond that time.
On a different issue, I want to ask the Leader of the House a question. I heard a rumour and it is one that deeply worries me, that a translation unit is to be installed in the centre of the VIP gallery. I accept that it is a matter for the Committee on Procedure and Privileges or whoever has responsibility. It would be a good idea if we were asked for our opinion on this. I accept that we need the translation unit in the House. Rather than have it installed either in that corner or where the monitor is, I understand there is another way of providing a translation service in this Chamber. It would be sad if such a unit were to destroy the appearance of the Seanad. I understand it is to be put there. The ordinary backbenchers' opinions should be asked about it.
If television and monitors are installed, there is no need for a translator in the House itself.
It is a matter that has been discussed by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and advice has been received from the Office of Public Works. If the House wants to discuss it at some time, then there should be no objection to the House doing that.
Could I inquire as to why the House did not meet until 4 o'clock today? As many speakers have said, we meet for little enough time as it is. We had a very extended summer vacation; we came back for one week and did not meet last week. It is disgraceful that we did not meet last week. I do not see why the business of this Chamber, which is supposed to be nonparty political should come to a standstill because there is an election for the office of President. This week we meet at 4 o'clock. I do not know what the reason is. I suspect it may be because there was a European Cup match. I do not know if that is the case. I would not like anyone to think that I am not interested. I went to the trouble of going to Rome for the World Cup. It is not that I am not interested but if that is the reason it gives a disgraceful example to the rest of the country. If I am wrong in that and if there is another reason, I would like to know it.
Senator McDonald and indeed, many other Senators referred to the length of speeches and the debate on item No. 2, Statements regarding European Economic/Monetary Union and European Political Union. I think Senator Raftery summed it up when he pointed out that last week when we had a debate on agriculture, for which there was a great demand, some speakers got two hours; others got two minutes. That is true and I think it is wrong. We tried, and it is preferable at all times to get agreement with the Whips for an orderly conduct of the debate if each speaker were allowed ten minutes, 15 minutes or 20 minutes everybody would get a fair amount of time. For that debate we tried to get 15 minutes or thereabouts for each speaker and the Whips indicated that, unfortunately, agreement could not be reached. Having said that, I just make this point, that the proposal was to finish the debate this evening at 9.30 p.m. I certainly have no problems at all in asking the House to agree to an extension of the debate for next week, as was suggested by many Senators. Some speakers like to go on for hours and half hours and so on. It is possible and I am not trying to curtail any debt but we should try to curtail our speeches to 15 or 20 minutes or thereabouts or less. I am giving you a commitment here and now we will continue this debate next week because of the importance of it and the Whips will meet to decide on the appropriate times for next week.
Senator O'Toole certainly, a fortnight or thereabouts, asked for a debate on education and I have it very much in mind. Other speakers also referred to a debate on education. I have gone out of my way since I became Leader to get debates which are of interest to all Senators, agricultural, EC matters and other matters, and I will pursue the matter of having a debate on education. However, there is no difficulty in the world for the Fine Gael Party, the Independent group or the Fianna Fáil group or the Labour group in putting down a Private Members' Motion dealing with all aspects of education. In that way they will get three hours debate on that subject. That is another way of proceeding.
Senator Costello offered congratulations to the Minister, Deputy John Wilson. I totally subscribe to that. I have no doubt he will be a very successful Tánaiste. Senator Costello also asked for a debate on education and I have already replied to that.
Senators Haughey and Staunton asked for an extension of time and I have given my reply to that. Senator Staunton also inquired about item No. 1 on the Order Paper. That, as he probably knows, is Private Business and I will discuss it with him at a later date and see what progress can be made.
Senator Ross and others referred to initiation of legislation. I have to say that I am certainly trying to get extra legislation initiated in this House. I have met the Taoiseach, as I said previously, and I am confident it will come. Already, in the last few weeks, the Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Bill, the Contractual Obligations Equal Law Bill and the Court (Supplemental Provisions) (Amendment) Bill were initiated here — three Bills in a very short time. I hope that trend continues. I do not wish to be unfair to anybody; I know the day in question was, if you like, an unreal day in the life of both Houses of the Oireacthas but, the Second Stage of the Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Bill passed with only two speeches. I do not think that is good enough. I would ask Senators to be more attentive to their business and to debate Bills that come to this House. If is something that has been thrown at me from time to time that when we do get legislation we do not give it the time that it deserves.
(Interruptions.)
The point I made on the Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Bill cannot be denied and I ask for greater awareness.
Could I point out that a Bill containing the words "supplemental" and "amendment" is not exactly what one would like on the legislative calendar.
Senator Norris, restrain yourself.
Senator Jackman also asked for a discussion on education. Senator Ryan referred to the translation problem, as did Senator Honan. The problem there is, as the Cathaoirleach has outlined, the Committee on Procedure and Privileges dealt with this. It was intended that there would be a remote control system operated from Setanta. We are told by the Office of Public Works that for absolutely technical reasons that is not possible and that it must be placed somewhere behind here. In view of what has been said by Senator Honan and others it is something the Committee on Procedure and Privileges I am sure, will discuss again. It is something appropriate to them.
Senator Ryan also referred to another issue involving Senator Séan McCarthy. I would like to talk to Senator Ryan privately about that and I will do so this evening. I have noted what Senator Rory Kiely said regarding the extra time and hopefully that can be resolved.
Senator Joe O'Reilly also referred to a debate on education. I would again stress that Fine Gael or any other group can, at any time, have a three hour debate on education.
At this time there is no proposal for a debate on the health services. Again, Senator Norris referred to an extension of time. I do not know what he means by this House not being treated with respect. Certainly, we go out of our way to respect all Members of the Seanad; I certainly do that and I know the Cathaoirleach and others and the Government generally have absolute respect for this House.
Senator Hederman asked why the time fixed for today was 4 p.m. I would remind Senator Hederman that this House agreed to a 4 p.m. start. It was in response to a request from a number of Senators on all sides of the House. There is no point in hiding it: it was purely because this very important match was on at 1.30 p.m. Some Senators wanted to go to the match; others wanted to see it on television. That was the thinking behind it. However, we are extending the sitting to 9.30 tonight. Therefore we are not losing time by starting at 4 p.m.
On a point of clarification on the time, would the Leader of the House consider the opening speaker to have 30 minutes and the remainder to have a maximum of 20?
As I said we tried to get an arrangement and that could well have been the arrangement. I have no objection to that suggestion. I asked that perhaps we might curtail our speeches to 15 minutes or thereabouts. I have no objection, if the House agrees, to say, a half hour or not more than half an hour for each of the group leaders and subsequently 15 minutes or thereabouts.
Is that aspect agreed on? Thirty minutes for the proposer and 15 minutes for each individual speaker afterwards? Agreed.
Unfortunately, I have to stress that we tried to get that for today. It was not agreed but now we have agreed on it.
Senator Norris has moved an amendment to the Order of Business: that Item No. 12, Motion No. 79, be inserted after Item No. 82. I ask him is the amendment being pressed?
In deference to the lateness of the hour I will not today but it will be my intention the very next time to put it to a vote.
Order of Business agreed to.