It is proposed to take item No. 2, to be completed by 2 p.m. with a sos from 2 p.m. until 3 p.m. In regard to item No. 2, I suggest that no more than 20 minutes be allowed per Senator. From 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. it is proposed to take item No. 3.
Order of Business.
On the Order of Business, I am astonished that for the third week in a row there will be no Private Member's Business. As I understand it, the Labour Party motion has been ruled out of order by the Cathaoirleach on the grounds that it already appeared in the last six months. It strikes me as very strange that, in relation to a matter of great public importance and concern, some way cannot be found to have this debated. I am sure there will be a row today if it is not accepted. I am astonished that it has not been possible to find some way of re-wording the motion, putting it in a different way, so that the substance could be debated here today. In anticipation of what will be said, I ask the Leader of the House to reconsider the ordering of Private Member's time — the Labour Party's hour and a half this evening — and that attempts be made to find a way in which this matter of great public importance can be debated, to find a form of words which makes it possible.
I would like to make precisely the same point. It is disgraceful that for a third week in a row Private Members' time has been ruled out by the Standing Order on repetition. I understand that you work on the basis of the Standing Order, a Chathaoirligh, but would it not be true to say that this is a specific set of proposals on a matter which was discussed before? We are going to discuss beef this afternoon. That matter has been discussed here regularly before, although not in the specific terms. If we take this question of repetition to its ultimate, any matter that has been referred to, even in a passing way, within a period of six months is suddenly ruled out for discussion. We had a debate on education last week. We have a commitment from the Leader of the House that there would be discussion on education in each session of the House. That could well be within six months; yet nobody would consider it to be repetition as such, nor would the Leader of the House himself.
I put it to the House that this is a Private Members' matter, a very certain set of proposals, a very detailed and direct motion, and I appeal to the Leader to find a way of allowing this matter to be discussed. I will not go into its content but it is of concern to all of us on all sides of the House. I am not saying there is any monopoly of concern on this side, but I am concerned that this Standing Order has been interpreted in order to deprive the House of Private Members' Time on three weeks in a row. It is not good enough and it is no way to order business. I particularly put it to the Leader of the House that, in the context of the very full co-operation that has been available to the Government side all through this session, this is not much to ask. We discussed our own business here in a very tight atmosphere——
I think, Senator, I have been very fair.
I would just put it through you, a Chathaoirligh, to the Leader of the House that in the context of the very full co-operation that has been always available this is a motion which should be discussed as a matter of grave concern to the House.
I find it totally inexplicable that this motion is not acceptable. I know the general tone of the matter is being repetitious, but it is a number of months since this matter was discussed. We have had debates on education and on agriculture in the meantime, and certainly the rigid rule on repetition has not been strictly implemented in that respect over a six-month period.
This is a matter of national importance and the Leader of the House should consider that. It is a matter that concerns both town and country. It concerns the loss of approximately 1,500 jobs; 550 post offices are threatened with closure. The entire sorting office in Sheriff Street is to be closed down and overall it has implications for the entire country. It will not be possible, certainly for the Labour Party, to put forward a motion of this nature until well into the autumn — we are talking about ten to 11 months — so that is away beyond the rule of the six-month period. I appeal to the Leader of the House to consider the issues that are expressed here in general terms and the issues that are expressed in specific terms of sufficient national importance that he would reconsider allowing this Private Members' motion to be debated at the appropriate time. It would be very bad for the status of the House if we were to go three weeks in a row and find that motions of considerable moment were ruled out of order simply on the basis that there might be an element of repetition in them. I appeal to the Leader of the House to reconsider the matter.
On the Order of Business, I would like to raise with the Leader of the House the increased bank charges which were announced yesterday, which we can describe as scandalous and brutal. One of our colleagues in the other House referred last week to a certain bird of prey. The Allied Irish Banks released the vultures yesterday. All of us here would support the request by the Minister for Finance to the Central Bank. If that does not bring us a certain result I would ask him to call for an inquiry into charges by the banking groups.
Let me first of all thank the Leader of the House for his courtesy in making available to me copies of the relevant sections of the Criminal Justice Act, which I have made available to my colleagues, to facilitate discussion this afternoon.
Let me also say that I understand that of course the Cathaoirleach's ruling is quite correct within the guidelines of the House, but it does underline to my mind the fact that the very rules themselves seriously need attention. One cannot blame the Cathaoirleach but the rules are incorrect.
Could I finally ask whether there is any significance in the fact that an item that was on the Order Paper yesterday, and has not been discussed, has disappeared — the regulations under the Control of Dogs Act? Does this have something to do with the erroneous inclusion of bulldogs?
I have been contacted by a constituent who tells me that bulldogs by their nature are very gentle, placid and docile, eminently suitable for families with children because of their utter reliability, even though their physical appearance belies this. They are affectionate and absolutely useless as watchdogs because of their affectionate nature. Finally, my correspondent hopes that this error will be brought to the attention of the Department of the Environment especially as, she says, she will not even be able to comply with the law given that bulldogs have no snout and therefore cannot physically be muzzled. Perhaps the Leader would be able to tell me whether or not——
I have not a snoutless muzzle, I am afraid.
I agree with my colleagues that we will have to sort out this question of repetition; otherwise Private Members' Time is going to become a lottery where we do not even know the precedent under which the word "repetition" is interpreted. We will have to sort it out so that first of all, we can discuss things that are urgent and, secondly, so that we can be reasonably certain one week that in the following week we will be able to discuss them.
May I say too, that I agree fully with Senator Cosgrave — and it is not often I say that — on the question of the banks. I have to agree with my colleague, Senator O'Toole, that there are obviously people, however well influenced in Fine Gael, who have not forgotten the background from which they came. They are directing them towards the high pinnacles of the financial market. It is a matter of concern. I think Eoin Harris's influence can be seen in this new concession to the banks.
I would like to ask the Leader of the House could we discuss the question of the banks? I have an increasingly large file from industry, in particular, about the appalling nature of the banks. The fact is that they are a virtual duopoly which rips off small business and small consumers and need to be dealt with. They behave in a disgraceful fashion. They put charges on people's bills without so much as a bill. They do things that other people could not do. I think we should have a serious debate on the operation of the banking system, not in any ideological fashion — I am not interested in that — but simply to put on the record of this House with the relevant Government Minister the appalling way in which the dice is loaded by the banks against their customers. I would ask the Leader to do that as a matter of urgency.
I wish to support the request that has been made by a number of Senators concerning item No. 52. I appeal to the Leader of the House to ensure that some discussions take place, the result of which will enable a debate to take place within the terms of what has been referred to here. I do that for a number of reasons, one of them being that there is a widespread belief that the fears being expressed here, or the options being threatened, are simply being postponed until the local elections are over. Therefore it is important, if only to give the lie to that, that the opportunity be provided for a discussion on the issues. I join in the appeal to the Leader of the House to endeavour to make whatever arrangements are necessary to enable the House to discuss this matter in Private Members' Time.
I also support the request by Senator Cosgrave, supported by a number of other Senators, to the Leader of the House to endeavour to ensure that time will be made available for a discussion on the recent increase in bank charges by the AIB Group and on banking in general in so far as attitude, terms, restrictions and charges apply to the business community and, indeed, to private borrowers as well.
As one of the signatories to item No. 52 I would like to support my colleagues, Senator Costello, and the other Senators who have asked the Leader of the House to reconsider the question of having this Private Members' motion on the agenda for today. It is a matter of grave concern throughout the country, especially in rural Ireland. Like Senator Howard, as a rural Senator I would be concerned that there may be a delayed action aspect in this and that we may be in a position to have it on the first Wednesday in July, which could be possibly too late for many people.
(Interruptions.)
I want to inform Senator Ryan that I attended a public meeting in Nenagh, which he did not do, at which I outlined my position quite categorically.
I want to point out to the House — and I have been particularly fair in relation to allowing comment to be made on item No. 52 — that my decision has been taken and I will not allow further debate on this matter. Everybody has made his point sufficiently. It is not the Leader of the House who decides on whether this motion is allowed or not. I have adhered to Standing Order No. 42. I am quite satisfied that the decision I made is correct, that this matter has been sufficiently discussed when the motion was down earlier this year and what is proposed to be discussed now is being placed on the Order Paper within six months. That is in contravention of Standing Order No. 42. It is my decision and not the decision of the Leader of the House.
Senator Lanigan rose.
I understand when——
I am not going to allow you to come in again.
The actual Standing Order gives you the discretion to do it——
I am not going to allow you to come in again.
The House has indicated the importance it attaches to this item.
Regardless of what your views are in support of your claim to have this motion discussed, I am not going to allow further discussion on the Order of Business regarding the matter.
The Labour Party have put down this motion in good faith, that this is a matter——
I accept that. I might add as well, Senator, that I afforded an opportunity yesterday for you to discuss this with me and for the leader of your group to discuss it with me. Regular contact was made with the office in question and there was no response. There was no opportunity taken up by you or any other members of your party to discuss this matter. I wanted to explain the position to you and to be as helpful as I could. You do not seem to have taken up that offer and I am not going to allow you to disrupt this House any further this morning.
I did discuss the matter with you.
You discussed it briefly in the corridor yesterday and I wished and wanted the Leader of your party to have a more detailed discussion with me.
On a point of order, I was offering and I was interrupted.
Allow me to deal with Senator Costello. I have asked Senator Costello to resume his seat.
This particular Private Members' motion——
I am not going to allow you to further interrupt the business. Do you wish me to take further action?
As I said, we will not——
Senator Costello, I am going to ask you to resume your seat for the last time.
This is a matter of national concern, a Chathaoirligh.
Are you going to continue? I am going to ask you to leave the House.
On a point of order——
I am dealing with Senator Costello and I am not going to involve myself with any other Members of the House until this matter is dealt with. I ask Senator Costello to leave the House.
I cannot accept that. It is not a matter of such importance——
I am calling on the Leader of the House to name Senator Costello.