It is proposed to take Item No. 4 as the first item — the Criminal Law Rape) (Amendment) Bill — and the intention is to continue that debate until 6 o'clock. From 6 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. we will have a sos followed by motion 89, the Independent motion and statements in relation to motion 79. If we find that Item No. 4 concludes before 6 o'clock we may move into the statements on motion 79 and continue then after 8 o'clock. In regard to that matter, I am suggesting — and I understand there is agreement — that the first speaker will speak for 20 minutes and each speaker thereafter for 15 minutes. These are statements. We are saying two hours, but obviously if you feel that you want an extension to three hours we can agree on that, but certainly we are saying two hours at this time.
Order of Business.
Before I come to the detail of today's business may I express the pleasure of my group at the appointment of Miss Deirdre Lane as Clerk of the House and wish her every success. We know she will be a splendid Clerk. At the risk of being childish at this moment, a Chathaoirligh, may I point out that when the legislation that governs the appointments of the Clerk and Clerk Assistant was being put through the Houses of the Oireachtas in the fifties a categoric assurance was given then that the leaders of the Opposition parties would be consulted in that process. There may have been an oversight, but that certainly did not happen. While the outcome would certainly have been the same, and the new clerk will have all our full support, I regret that the promise given then was not carried through on this occasion. I suspect it may have been an oversight.
May I comment, first of all that I was not aware of any such commitment having been given and the advice given me by the former Clerk of the Seanad in connection with this matter was set down in a certain form and that form was strictly adhered to. This, and the advice given, and not having knowledge of any commitment given——
I absolutely accept what the Cathaoirleach says. Perhaps we could have this matter raised at the Committee on Procedure and Privileges later so that it can be clarified. In any event, the outcome is as it would have been.
We are not agreeing to the Order of Business today, as was made clear at the Whips meeting last week. Before I get into the reason, could I have clarification from the Leader of the House about the time limit on speeches on Motion 79? Our Whip is not aware that any agreement was made. Perhaps the Whips could talk about it afterwards, but certainly we have not agreed to any time limit on speeches on Motion 79. The Leader of the House said there would be statements on Motion 79 and that indicates there will not be a vote.
The reason we are opposing the Order of Business today, and will do so tomorrow and Friday, is because of warnings I have been giving here for the past three or four weeks, and warnings which have come from all groups on this side of the House, about the way in which it is intended to deal with the Companies Bill. The Companies Bill, as everybody knows, is in effect a new Bill. It comes back here with 297 amendments from the Dáil Committee. It left here over two years ago. It is a very different Bill to the Bill which left this House. Under the procedures under which the Bill will be debated people will be allowed to make statements on the different parts of the Bill, but there can only be one vote and that is at the end.
There is no way in which anything said in this House will in any way alter the content of that Bill; in other words, we are being given a fait accompli. The Minister for Industry and Commerce said two or three weeks ago that the Bill would be on the Statute Book before Christmas. The Leader of the House at that stage said to us that he would consider whether we could recommit it to Committee Stage or whether some way could be found in which this Bill could be looked at in some detail.
The Bill arrived from the Dáil at the beginning of this week. The debates on Report Stage in the Dáil have not yet been published. Many of the major newspapers and the professional groups have said that this Bill is still defective, that there are important items to be addressed in it. What we are being asked to do is put this Bill through in less than two days here in an extremely restricted debate, a Report Stage debate. We are being asked to have a Report Stage debate on a Bill which effectively has not gone through Committee or indeed through Second Stage in this House.
I and the other groups here have said that we do not want to be obstuctive but we want to do our duty. It would be better if we just put this Bill through on the nod rather than go through the charade of being here for two days and speaking at length in a way which will have no effect whatsoever on the Bill, knowing that the Minister simply wants to get it out and on the Statute Book as quickly as possible.
What we are being asked to do is to participate in a charade which is clearly in contempt of this House and my group will have no part in that. For that reason we will be opposing the Order of Business today, tomorrow and Friday unless the Leader of the House can convene the Whips after the Order of Business today and see if something satisfactory can be arranged.
For example, our spokesman on Industry and Commerce got the Bill yesterday and got the amendments today. He has not even got a weekend — we are meeting on Friday — to go through the Bill. It is totally unsatisfactory and for that reason we will oppose the Order of Business.
I was going to point out, Senator, that the Companies Bill is not on today's Order of Business.
I was giving my reasons why we are opposing the Order of Business today.
Creidim go gcuirfear tús amárach leis an gcóras nua craolachán teilifíse agus cuirim fáilte roimhe. Is oth liom go mór, afách, nach bhfuil aon chóras aistriúcháin ar fáil go fóill. Tá breis agus bliain gafa thart anois ó d'árdaigh an Seanadóir Pól Ó Foighil an cheist seo. Ní fheicim go bhfuil aon dul ar aghaidh déanta agus beidh sé scannalach má bhíonn ar an Seanadóir dul ar bhóthar na cúirte chun a chearta bunreachtúla a bhaint amach.
It is customary on the Order of Business to urge debates about violations of human rights in other countries. We should also note the beam in our own eye. I asked the Leader of the House to bring to the attention of the Government that many Members on this side support the call by Amnesty International — I speak as a hawk on law and order, but I do support this and I am very uneasy about it — in the last few days for an inquiry into the alleged Garda ill-treatment of those arrested for the Sallins mail train robbery. I should like to know whether the Government will respond to our concern on that.
Finally, I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that two days of varied business last week went virtually unreported in the press while extensive coverage was given to a relatively trivial argument on the Order of Business. I am not for a moment suggesting that we should dictate to the press. Obviously, the press will have to do whatever is its job, it will have to supply what it considers to be of most entertainment value to its readers as well of information value. But it certainly should concern us that the image of the House which is thus presented will bring into further disrepute, I think, the already indifferent public perception of the Seanad. Not so long ago, one columnist contemptuously described this House as a "one ring circus". I think the ringmaster and the clowns should take note.
I wish to request the leader of the House to give very serious consideration to the points raised by Senator Manning. I hope, a Chathaoirligh, that you will bear with me and keep in mind that I am my party's spokesman on Industry and Commerce. For that reason I am expected, if the Leader of the House and the Government party have their way to deal tomorrow and Friday with a most complex piece of legislation. I asked at the Whips meeting, and I am repeating that appeal today to the Leader of the House, to please recommit the Companies Bill to Committee Stage in Seanad Éireann. Very briefly, a Chathaoirligh, my difficulty, as I said, is that I am my party's spokesman on this side. I have received both the amendments and the Bill this morning. Therefore, if the proposal from the Leader of the House goes through, I have only a matter of hours this evening to deal with this proposed legislation, to read through it and to consider my position on it — a piece of legislation that occupied 21 days sittings of the Dáil Committee.
It is very important legislation and we on this side of the House want to do justice to it but I feel we are not being given the opportunity of making the contribution that would be expected of us. I also wish to make the point that by requesting the Seanad to deal in two days with a Bill that took 21 days to be dealt with in the Dáil Committee is a reflection on the independence, capacity and the integrity of Seanad Éireann. Therefore, I am urging as strongly as I can on the Leader of the House to consider this afternoon my request to recommit this Bill.
Finally, I would point out that it is a Bill with almost 300 amendments to it since it left this House. Incidentally, I was not a member of the Seanad that dealt with this legislation, and that is an added disadvantage. Of the 300 amendments that have been made to the Bill, almost two-thirds of them have come from the Minister. Fundamentally, therefore it is a new Bill. It is not the Bill that the Seanad dealt with previously; it is an entirely new measure. It is a most complex and important piece of legislation. Therefore, it is important that the Seanad, in its role as a review Chamber, would be given every opportunity to do itself justice and to do the legislation justice. I earnestly ask the Leader of the House to consider my request.
I wish to refer to motion No. 79, which deals with a matter of human rights. I am always puzzled by the fact that when there is another motion down dealing with human rights we jump from one item to another and there is not continuity on matters of social concern. For example, we have now a statement on the outcome of a court case. I know it could be confusing to have the whole lot discussed, but there should be an opportunity to deal with motion No. 89, which also deals with human rights. People who are alone also come under human rights, so I believe there should be continuity in that respect.
I regret that I have to oppose the Order of Business today, even though we have had a very good working relationship with the Government Whip, Senator Wright. He has been very helpful and cooperative. I explained to him beforehand and we came to an agreement of sorts that it would be necessary, because of the build-up of pressure this week from the Judiciary and others, to look at motion No. 87 and dispose of it. If we are going to let it hang the same way as we have left hang the matter of the decision of the European Court of Justice on the rights of homosexuals, then we will be arguing about it for many days. We have a special reason for this — we are being pressured — and therefore we are going to stay at it until we get some satisfaction.
A Senator speaking from the other side of the House indicated that it was customary to allow statements to be made in regard to breaches of human rights in any part of the world. Would the Cathaoirleach be kind enough to clarify this for me? I have raised this matter previously and I would appreciate very much your ruling and decision on it. Would you clarify for me the position about papers laid before the House? I refer in particular to the Road Traffic (Liceensing of Trailers and Semi-Trailers) (Amendment) Regulations, 1990. This is a subject of major importance and I believe that it is one on which this House would have a view to express. I am going on the simple philosophy that if there is an order for a paper to be laid before the House I do not see the purpose of laying the paper before the House if there is no provision for the House to comment upon such a paper.
May I say first of all that of course I agree with Senator Manning that the suggestion — indeed, Senator Howard put it very eloquently — that the Companies Bill should be rushed through would be outrageous. I am glad to see Fine Gael returning to the natural role of an Opposition, given their somewhat suspect role in setting up one of my colleagues to be effectively demolished by the Leader of the House last week. I am glad to see that they are no longer in any sort of involvement with the Government.
The Senator is completely wrong.
If Senator Doyle tells me I am completely wrong, I have learned to apologise and to say I have made a mistake and am sorry.
I object to the Senator's comments but I accept his apology.
Did Senator Harte move an amendment to the Order of Business? If he did, I want to second it; if he did not, I want to move it. He did? I want to second Senator Harte's motion that item No. 87 be taken today. I think there is an overwhelming reason for this, given the horrific content of the report of the Prison Visiting Committee in Mount joy. To have 15 year old girls locked up in that environment is a disgrace and would be a disgrace in the most primitive countries in the world. It is time it was stopped. It should stop now. We do not need major legislation. I would appeal to the Leader of the House in the interests of the relevance of this House to have the matter of our prisons discussed at the earliest possible time. It is no longer suitable as Private Members' Business. It is too big, too serious and too fundamental. It is a reflection on the country. It is not a small domestic issue. The treatment of prisoners in those circumstances is a reflection on civilisation in this country and it should end immediately. That report is among the most horrific that has ever been published in my lifetime. It is a scandal and we should have an immediate debate on it.
I would ask Members to confine themselves to the Order of Business and to raising questions with the Leader of the House rather than making speeches.
I am not quite sure if that was a suggestion that I was making a speech.
I would interpret it as a speech.
Thank you. May I also ask, Sir, and I beg your indulgence on this, if it would be possible for the Leader of the House to do something that I think he would like to do but which may not be entirely relevant to the Order of Business? Could he take up with the Minister for the Environment the fact that there is £.5 million, allocated to alleviating the plight of the homeless, sitting in the Department of the Environment, which will not be spent this year and which will be returned to the Department of Finance in three weeks and, given what Senator Ó Foighil attempted to raise on the Order of Business, could he take up with the Minister the question of that money being used in the time that remains? It is available under section 10. It has not been used, or availed of. It would be scandalous if the homeless were left without the effective distribution of £.5 million because of bureaucratic delays. I would ask the Leader of the House to pursue the matter with the Minister in the three weeks that remain to see that that money does not return to the Department of Finance, as it has done on at least one previous occasion. It is not something that either we, or the Leader or the Minister for the Environment, I am sure, would like to happen.
I rise in regard to two matters. On the Order Paper, item No. 2 is the Altamont (Amendment of Deed of Trust) Bill, 1990. My understanding is that Lord Altamount recently circulated Members of this House with a very adequate and succinct explanatory memorandum about the background to this case. I would urge the Leader of the House to see that this matter comes before the Seanad as soon as possible. If is his general response he might refer to this I would be greatly obliged.
The other point I want to raise is that I agree with Senators Manning and Howard in relation to the Companies Bill, because my understanding is that the Minister wants it to have very quick passage through this House. Given that next week will be the last week we will be sitting before Christmas, I applaud you for having allowed some brief discusions in relation to this Bill.
I would regard it as entirely inadequate that we have only a Report Stage dealing with this issue. It goes back to the fundamental nature of what this Seanad is about, the Upper Chamber, a supposed Chamber of vocational interest. My mind goes back to membership of the Seanad over a decade ago when in areas such as Companies Bills we had Senators such as Alexis Fitzgerald and Eoin Ryan who, because of their eminence in this particular area were allowed weeks by the Cathaoirleach and by the Leader of the House to tease out the minutae of legislation such as this. I would have thought that this is the prime purpose of the Seanad, a reflective Chamber which can reflect in a vocational and in a non-political sense. The other point is that in business circles this Companies Bill is regarded as the most fundamental legislation that is going through this House.
I do not wish to cut across Senator Staunton, but I must point out that we are dealing with something that is not on the Order of Business today. I have given considerable latitude to Senator Manning and to Senator Howard because of the special position that Senator Howard pleaded. I would ask Senator Staunton, in the interest of trying to get the Order of Business concluded, to be as brief as possible.
I have always found the Cathaoirleach tolerant; three more sentences will do me and there is the precedent of my two colleagues before me. This is effectively a new Bill. Since it was last in the Seanad 297 amendments have been made to it. It is a Bill which contains 12 pages in the index alone, with 262 sections of the most fundamentally important legislation. The final point I wish to make is that we must do justice to this Seanad in allowing an adequate debate on this Bill. At issue is our own relevance. If the Leader of the House chooses to push this through with a rapid guillotine we are merely signifying our own irrelevance. I would say to the Leader — he is a very reasonable person and we do not want to make trouble here — that on reflection he might accede to the views being expressed here for a lengthy debate on this Bill.
I would like to welcome the decision of the Leader of the House to place on our Order of Business for today motion No. 79, proposed by Senator Norris and Senator Shane Ross for the opportunity for statements to be made. I would like to raise another matter in relation to motions on the Order of Business. A motion tabled by one or other, or both, of the same Senators has now, I am glad to say, been withdrawn. It was a motion based on very erroneous information regarding the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, picked up on Saturday in a major cross-channel newspaper. I would like to ask the Leader of the House what is the procedure for removing motions from the Order of Paper. I am glad that this motion has now been removed but I think it stayed on the Order Paper for a fairly considerable time.
First of all, I would like to add my congratulations to Miss Lane on her appointment. I will not deal with the issue as regards the Companies Bill but as a new Senator I found it is virtually impossible over the last few days to go through that weighty document. I certainly add my support to the points made by the Fine Gael Senators. My major concern is to put a question to the Leader of the House regarding the long promised debate on education.
Last week in Private Members Time, at least six Senators did not get an opportunity to speak, not because of lack of interest on their part but because of there were only three hours allowed between the two weeks. Because of that and the subsequent publication of the report of the Primary School Review Body and the recommendations that emanated from that, I am asking for a specific date in January on which Senators who have not yet spoken and who still wish to debate a matter that will be very important for 1991, will get an opportunity to do so in a full debate on education.
I would like to congratulate our new Clerk and wish her many years of happy association in her present job with the Seanad. I, too, would express major concern about the manner in which the Companies Bill is being reintroduced into this House. The Bill has been changed essentially and fundamentally in the other House. The idea that it can be railroaded through the House in a space of two days or less certainly does not do justice to the Bill in physical terms or in its importance. To give due respect to this House a more appropriate length of time is required in order to ensure that the Bill can be discussed, having regard to the fact that it has essentially changed in nature.
I compliment the Leader of the House in bringing foward motion No. 79 on the question of human rights in relation to homosexuality. I would also fully endorse motion No. 89, which deals with the other area of human rights. That motion has been proposed and seconded and is the first item on the Order of Business today. Hardly a week has gone by that there has not been a crisis in the prison system. Now the official visiting committee have made a report describing horrific conditions in prisons the least we can do is to give that report the authority, acknowledgment and status of being debated here so that we can all discuss it rather——
Again, I must remind the Senator that he is engaging in a speech. In fairness to everybody, he should put a question to the Leader and allow him to reply to it.
In that case I put a question which is twofold. I would ask the Leader of the House to make it the first item on the Order of Business, secondly, that a committee of the House would appoint representatives from each of the parties to visit the prisons.
There is a process in this House whereby Senators can make such a proposal. The Senator is not using the Order of Business for the purpose for which it is intended.
I also would like the debate on Education to be extended. It was impossible to have the length of debate required having regard to the crisis that exists in education at present.
I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate Miss Lane on her appointment. She is a neighbour of mine in County Tipperary and she comes from that famous historical parish of Lorrha which has that knack of producing excellent people at times. We are extremely fortunate in having someone of her calibre to take over from Mr. Coughlan. I wish her long years of success.
I, too, would like to congratulate Miss Lane on her appointment to the top civil service post she now occupies. To the best of my knowledge, she is the first of my gender to occupy the post. I wish her well. It is not before its time that we had a woman of her calibre in the post. I hope she has all health and happiness for many years here in the Seanad. These are heartfelt remarks.
We welcome the opportunity to discuss motion No. 79. I would like to ask the Leader of the House when we can expect the Second Stage of item No. 3, a most important piece of legislation?
I thought the Senator was forgetting about it.
We are not forgetting about it. This is a most important piece of legislation that all of us have been requesting for some time. I would like to have some assurances that it will receive priority in this House as soon as we return after Christmas and that there will be no attempt to short-circuit or circumvent discussion on any of its Stages in this House because. It is a Bill to which we all have to do justice, for reasons that are self-explanatory.
Senator Murphy raised a most important point when he questioned the limited coverage of a very small item last week in the Seanad. Could I just add to that a point that been made to me? I live in a rural constituency. Perhaps the vast majority of Senators do, I am taking a risk in saying that but many Members of this House are from rural Ireland. My plea would be that the newspapers other than The Irish Times who do report the proceedings of the Seanad would make a greater effort to allow rural Ireland know what happens in this Chamber. Traditionally the Irish Press and the Irish Independent are the papers of rural Ireland for different reasons. Only last night I was asked in a small village which Senator Byrne will know, Tymon in County Wexford, what do you do up in the Seanad? We never know a thing about it. I asked “what paper do you buy” and I was told, if I may briefly advertise, the Irish Independent. For all our sakes and for the sake of the Seanad, so that we will appear to be as relevant as I feel we are to the proceedings in this State, could I ask for broader press coverage from the other papers? One newspaper does it very well. The others do not for some reason; it may be an editorial decision. I would welcome broader representation by the press of what goes on this House.
While the relationship between the press and the Members of this House would appear to have some considerable relevance to individual Members, it does not appear to me to have great significance to the Order of Business.
I thank you. As one who is only too well aware of the importance of the press I think the Cathaoirleach will appreciate the point.
That is certainly not on the Order of Business. I might add that the Senator seems to have obtained a sufficient opportunity on her own behalf and should stick to the Order of Business at this stage.
I will be advised by you. My point is well made. I support the point that Senator Murphy made in relation to the press.
On, perhaps, a slightly more serious note, even though I was quite serious in what I have said so far, could I concur with my colleagues, Senators Manning, Howard and Staunton in relation to the Companies Bill? I am afraid I have to ask the Leader of the House whether the treatment being meted out to the Seanad in the next few days in dealing with this most important Bill is justified.
This is legislation that was in the Seanad during the last Seanad session when many of us had not been elected to the Seanad. That point is being lost sight of. We are being asked to come in on Report Stage with a Bill which went through a previous Seanad comprised of different Members. I would like to ask the Leader of the House whether the Minister involved is requesting this Seanad Chamber merely to rubber stamp what has happened in the Dáil. Is this the treatment being meted out to the Seanad and is this the Government's view of the relevance of Seanad Éireann? I certainly do not accept it and I would like to know from the Leader of the House whether he is prepared to show the independence of this House and whether he will insist that the Bill be recommitted to Committee Stage so that we can have a full and thorough debate on this most important Bill.
The treatment of the Companies Bill, given the history and importance of the Bill and the fact that there is a different Seanad now from when the Bill was initiated in this House whiffs of a dictator's hand somewhere down the line. That does not mean the Leader of the House. I think he realises what I am saying. There is a whiff there of a dictator's hand and I do not like the treatment being meted out to the Chamber. Is it any wonder our relevance is questioned by the people?
May I deplore the mixed metaphor that we have just been treated to? I have never heard of the whiff of a hand.
It depends.
Agricultural aroma from the hand, perhaps.
I would like to welcome the undertaking given by the Leader of the House that we will have an opportunity to make statements on motion No. 79 or in the related area. I noted with interest that he said he has made provision for a two-hour period but would be prepared to consider three hours. I would like very much if he would extend it to three hours. If there are not sufficient speakers, then the debate will collapse. There might be some considerable interest and I ask if he would consider allowing three hours for that debate.
I would like, if it is possible to draw the attention of the House and of the Leader of the House to a matter that concerns me. It is not perhaps the most important matter but I think it is significant, that is, the fact that Members of this House were barred from access to both restaurants and this Chamber last Monday because there was a meeting of the British and Irish Parliamentary Association. In view of the fact that some of us feel that the composition of the representation was made by gerrymander——
That is not a matter for the Order of Business. The House decided some time ago that this Chamber would be used for that meeting. If the Senator has some unhappiness about the facilities he should use another forum which he has on occasion used for the purpose of having his problems aired.
I thank you for your advice and I will not pursue the matter, at least in this forum.
I share the concern on this side of the House that I believe is probably shared by some members of the Government side as well, about the way in which the business is being treated. I am not going to repeat all the arguments but it is perfectly clear if you read the reports that there has been a period of idleness and coming up to Christmas, as usual, a mad rush where legislation is simply pushed through at a rate that does not allow for proper discussion. This seems to be to be a subversion of the proper role of the Seanad. I am not going to go into it any more but I want to make that point.
Regarding the point raised by Senator Conroy concerning the item dealing with the aboriginal's head, indeed it has been withdrawn but because it is a permanent list until the Christmas recess it cannot disappear. I quite accept — and I think it was largely due to Senator Professor Conroy's intervention — that the matter was satisfactorily resolved and I am surprised it surfaced in a foreign newspaper. I regret that this happened.
I would like to support what Senator Murphy said about the Sallins mail train case and what appeared to have been a serious miscarriage of justice, especially in the case of Nicky Kelly. I hope there may be an opportunity for recognising this fact.
May I say with regard to items a number of people have raised about the business last week, I do not think what was reported was at all trivial. If it illuminated the operation of a second set of——
Last week, Senator, is history. We should consign last week to history and stick with the Order of Business, which is very much in the present.
Indeed and in the present may I thank Senator Doyle for her clarification because when I mentioned to her that I felt she had set me up she smiled and said "That is interesting". I very much welcome the fact that she has been more forthcoming to the House. I am quite aware of the fact——
Order. Senators must not address one another in the House. They may smile at one another but they may not address one another.
May I just say with a whiff of my hand and a Senatorial smile on my lips that far from bringing the House into disrepute in the interesting exchanges that occurred in recent history, what brought this House into disrepute was the fact that Members from all parties indicated very clearly that they were not interested in this House and they intended at the earliest opportunity to seek election to the Dáil. That is what brings the House to——
Last week is over and I would remind the Senator of that.
Thank you. I have just one final comment, if I may. With regard to newspaper coverage it should be noted that not just The Irish Times and the Irish Independent— never the Irish Press which is regrettable — but, indeed, The Cork Examiner gives very full coverage. I am not saying that that is a rural or provincial paper but it is a very good paper.
I do not wish to delay the Order of Business; we seem to have spent a lot of time on it at this stage; but I am surprised that none of the Opposition Senators have congratulated the Leader of the House on his role in ensuring that the Environmental Protection Agency Bill is being initiated in the Seanad. This is the type of action which we all want to see and, therefore, as no Senator has congratulated the Leader of the House, I would like to congratulate him for ensuring that this major piece of legislation has been initiated in the Seanad. It demonstrates quite clearly that the Government take this House very seriously.
My second point has been referred to by Senator Norris. It is my understanding and belief that The Cork Examiner gives this House very adequate coverage and that is to be welcomed. RTE cater for a rural population as well. They, also, are to be congratulated on the coverage they give to Seanad business.
Tá na Comhaltaí uilig ag caint anseo faoi coverage agus ag fiafraí an mbeidh trácht sna nuachtáin. Níl seans ar bith agamsa go ndéanfar tuairisceoireacht ormsa sna nuachtáin mar níl siad ag dul a rá tada fúmsa. Dá mbeinn ag caint anseo go maidin i nGaeilge is é a déarfaí ní thuigimid thú agus nílimid chun tada a thuairisciú. Tá mé ag cur na ceiste tríd an gCathaoir, ar an gCeannaire, don uair dheiridh, gealltanas a thabhairt dúinn anseo inniú go mbeidh an córas aistriúcháin insealbhaithe agus ag obair agus daoine ann lena chur ag obair tar éis shos na Nollag. Mura mbeidh, ní fheicfear mise istigh sa suíochán seo ach feicfear mé in áit éigin eile chun mo chearta bunreachtúla a bhaint amach.
First, I would like to join in the well-deserved congratulations to Miss Deirdre Lane on her elevation to this very important office. It is a personal achievement for her and for mná na hÉireann also.
I want to allude to two specific items and to put them to the Leader of the House. First, I ask him please to accept the plea of my colleague, Senator Jackman for a debate on education very early in the New Year. I ask the Leader of the House if he is aware of the great level of discontent that exists at the moment among teacher unions and educational interests. This needs to be dealt with by way of a proper debate on the issue.
I welcome the achievement of the Leader of the House in bringing the Environmental Protection Agency Bill to the Seanad and I ask him if, in his quest to establish the relevance of the House he would be prepared to have the other very important area of social policy debated in this House early in the New Year. I am very genuinely appealing to him on behalf of so many persons who are affected to commit himself to a one-day special debate on the health services in the New Year.
I ask the indulgence of the Cathaoirleach to make this point: I do not accept it is adequate to say that we can put motions down. There are motions down in the names of Senator Manning and myself on the health services. That is not a panacea for what I consider to be an emergency situation permeating the entire health services at the moment. I appeal to the Leader of the House to give this matter the kind of priority it needs.
As somebody with special interest in Tipperary I would like to join in congratulating Miss Deirdre Lane. I would like to support Senator Harte's proposal for a discussion of the prison system. The report is absolutely unbelievable. The women's prison in particular is a sore on society and something must be done about it without further delay. I would like the debate to be broadened to include a discussion on this week's proposals of the Minister for Justice in relation to crime and crime control which is only touching the problems, but not going to the root of the problems. A broad discussion here would be welcomed.
I would also like to ask the Leader of the House to give time in the near future for a discussion of the decision that is likely to emanate from the High Court with regard to the Goodman affairs, whereby the farmers of Ireland will be asked to support the banks to help them out of difficulties caused by bad decisions on their part.
May I, on behalf of my party, join in the congratulations to Miss Lane on her promotion and say I believe it has nothing to do with gender and everything to do with ability; that is the reason she got her well deserved promotion.
In relation to the coverage, or lack of coverage, by newspapers it would be appropriate to suggest that the Irish Farmers' Journal would send a correspondent so that the people of rural Ireland would be able to have a vision and a taste of what is happening in the House.
Senator Murphy raised the televising of the proceedings of the House. Can I ask the Leader what progress has been made in relation to the "Yokes" on the wall? They seem to have spawned an offspring since we were last here and I would not like it to continue because we would wind up with a whole family of cameras. Can anything be done to ensure that the character of the Chamber will be maintained? This is something which has been discussed and it is something which needs to be attended to.
I, too, would like to extend my congratulations and good wishes to Miss Deirdre Lane on her appointment as Clerk of the Seanad.
There are two points I would like to address. First, I believe the Leader should listen very carefully to the points made by Senators Manning, Howard and others in relation to the Companies Bill and allow sufficient time for a meaningful debate on it.
I would also like to support the point made in regard to education. As one of the persons who did not have an opportunity to speak on the education motion last week, for reasons of time, I would advocate, together with those who have already done so, a special time being allowed in the New Year for a debate on the education motion.
I, too, would like to comment on the elevation of Miss Deirdre Lane to the position of Clerk of the Seanad. I join with my colleague, Senator Dardis, in assuring her that she will have the whole-hearted support of our party, as indeed she will of the entire Chamber.
At the outset I, too, would like warmly to congratulate Miss Deirdre Lane on her elevation to the post of Clerk of the Seanad. I have no doubt she will prove a very excellent Clerk of the Seanad. She is excellent in Seanad procedure. She will fill the bill admirably. I wish her well in her new post.
Senator Manning explained the problem he has in regard to the Companies Bill, as did many other Senators. These arrangements can easily be made when the Whips meet later. The Companies Bill has been in the Seanad for the best part of two years, it was in the Dáil for the best part of two years. The world of business is waiting anxiously for this Bill. I would imagine that after that length of time much has been achieved in the way of——
Not this Bill.
Not at all.
In regard to any amendments that may be suggested in this House on Report Stage, the Minister has indicated that he can take on board the aspirations of these amendments and, if appropriate, he can implement them by regulation or ministerial order.
Senator Manning asked about Item No. 79 on the Order Paper, as did other Senators, and welcomed the fact that it was on the Order Paper.
Senator Murphy spoke about Amnesty International and a debate on Human Rights. This is an important matter an something which can be discussed in the New Year.
Maidir leis an cheist faoin chóras aistriúcháin, ba mhaith liom a rá nach bhfuil dabht ar bith agam ach go mbeidh an córas ar fáil sa Teach seo i gcionn cúpla mí nó mar sin.
I would also like to comment on a point made by Senator Howard in regard to the Companies Bill. I accept the importance of the Bill and I want to stress that. I would hope that the spirit of co-operation that has always existed with Senator Howard, whom I regard as an extremely helpful and responsible Whip, will continue when we meet this evening. We are meeting tomorrow and Friday to discuss the Companies Bill and as I have explained, we have spent a lot of time dealing with this matter——
Not this Bill.
It is the Companies (No. 2) Bill at all times. I accept that there are major amendments. Senator Harte proposed that we accept item No. 87 and requested a debate on this matter which I agree is very important. Last night, on television, I heard the district justice talk about this problem. He said it was a problem that has been there for 20 years and that no Government in that time did anything seriously about it. While I have no plan for a debate on that important matter before Christmas, certainly it is something I will consider very seriously after Christmas. I can guarantee that.
Senator McGowan asked a question which was more appropriate to the Cathaoirleach. Senator Brendan Ryan seconded the vote of Senator Harte and asked about the £.5 million for the homeless. Again, it is not appropriate to the Order of Business. I would like to think that that money will not be returned to the Minister for Finance, that it will be spent in the area for which it was earmarked under section 10 of the Bill. I will certainly speak to the Minister in regard to this matter, as the Senator asked.
Senator Staunton asked about the Altamont Bill. He made a point that we did receive correspondence, as I am sure all members did. I am waiting for the explanatory memorandum which, hopefully, will be very detailed. That will be more important than the letter we received from Lord Altamont. The Senator also referred to the Companies Bill.
Senator Conroy referred to a review of motions. That is an ongoing matter we examine and look at from time to time and rightly so.
Senator Jackman asked for a debate on education, in Government time presumably. Again, I would say to her that we had a debate set up with the Minister on Government time but in the meantime the Fine Gael Party put down a Private Members' motion for the three hours. In my opinion, there should not be debates on education, agriculture or whatever every second week. We had a fairly extensive debate, although it was only for three hours, on education. I do not foresee that we will have a debate on education in the near future. Senator Costello supported item No. 87 and asked for a joint committee to deal with the issue of prisoners. That is not appropriate to the Order of Business but perhaps we can have a debate on the issue of young people in jail, and the prison system generally in the New Year.
Senator McKenna expressed congratulations to Miss Lane as did Senator Doyle. She referred to item No. 79. Somebody asked if it was a two hour or a three hour debate. It was intended to be two hours but if there is need for an extra hour, it can be extended.
I am very happy that we have the Environmental Protection Agency Bill. We received it yesterday evening. It is something that I, and Senators Wright and Brendan Ryan have been pushing for. I thank the Taoiseach, the Minister and the Minister of State for the Environment who were very helpful in giving us this Bill. It is something we should examine and analyse in detail over Christmas. It will be one of the priorities when we come back in the new year. While I try to allocate as much time as I can to all legislation, this legislation will require a lot of time and from my point of view, as much time as is necessary will be given to it.
There was a reference to the press by Senator Doyle and others which is not appropriate to the Order of Business. In fairness, I would have to say that two reporters, one from The Irish Times and one from the Irish Independent, are great friends of the Seanad and I read regularly of debates in the Seanad. I am sure they are not happy with what is put into their papers. They write a lot of material dealing with the Seanad proceedings and I thank them for that. Also, I would include in this to a lesser extent, the Irish Press and The Cork Examiner. I would say to them to continue the good work and try to have more coverage in future, if that is possible. The question of TV coverage was also mentioned. I understand that in-House proceedings will commence fairly soon.
Senator Doyle referred to the Companies Bill and the treatment of it. I explained how long that is going on. Senator Norris welcomed the debate on item No. 79 and raised the question of being barred from this House. That is not appropriate to the Order of Business. He also mentioned the newspaper item.
I thank Senator Haughey for his words on the EPA Bill. As far as I am concerned, I will continue to have as much legislation as possible initiated in this House. I assure Senators of that.
In regard to Senator ÓFoighil, I replied "as Gaeilge', limited as my Gaeilge is, regarding an córas aistriúcháin. Senator O'Reilly congratulated Miss Lane and asked for a debate on education. He also asked for a one-day debate on health issues. I do not think that is possible but maybe in the future we might have a limited debate on health. Senator Neville supported having a debate on the prison system. The Goodman affair is not appropriate to the Order of Business.
Senator Dardis referred to the cameras. I understand this is a temporary arrangement and hopefully they will not be here when we come back in the new year. Senator Hourigan expressed support for the Companies Bill and a debate on education. Senator Keogh was the last speaker and also congratulated Miss Lane on her new post.
Senator McGowan raised the question of laying documents before the House and Standing Order No. 122 deals with it: (1) A document shall be deemed to have been laid before the Seanad on delivery of a copy of the document of the Clerk for that purpose and (2) All documents laid before the Seanad shall be considered public. If any Member of the House wants to request the House for time to discuss documents laid before the House that is a matter for the House. I hope that answers sufficiently the question raised by Senator McGowan. We have an amendment to the Order of Business proposed by Senator Harte and seconded by Senator Ryan.
We have been listening carefully to the undertaking given on two occasions by the Leader of the House in his reply to the overall debate. We are quite satisfied that he will live up to his word. I will take him at his word and will not push him.
Tá
- Bennett, Olga.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Conroy, Richard.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Dardis, John.
- Fallon, Seán.
- Farrell, Willie.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Lydon, Don.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McGowan, Paddy.
- McKenna, Tony.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- Foley, Denis.
- Haughey, Seán F.
- Honan, Tras.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Keogh, Helen.
- Kiely, Dan.
- Kiely, Rory.
- Lanigan, Michael.
- O'Brien, Francis.
- O'Donovan, Denis A.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- Ormonde, Donal.
- Ryan, Eoin David.
- Wright, G.V.
Níl
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, Joe.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Harte, John.
- Hourigan, Richard V.
- Howard, Michael.
- Jackman, Mary.
- Kennedy, Patrick.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Neville, Daniel.
- Norris, David.
- Ó Foighil, Pól.
- O'Reilly, Joe.
- Ross, Shane P.N.
- Ryan, Brendan.
- Ryan, John.
- Staunton, Myles.
- Upton, Pat.