The Order of Business for today is as follows: from the conclusion of the Order of Business until 6 p.m. we will have Second Stage of the Sea Pollution Bill, 1990. There will be a sos from 6 p.m. to 6.30 p.m.; at 6.30 p.m. to 8 p.m. we will take item No. 40 on the Supplementary Order Paper, that is, the Independent motion.
Order of Business.
On the Order of Business, may I first of all ask the Leader of the House for a detailed schedule of the Bills and business to be taken this session? The Government have had three months to prepare such a programme, yet so far as we have no indication on this side of the House as to what is proposed for this session. If we do not get that information early on the Business of the House will become a shambles.
I would like to ask that three specific matters be debated during this current session, and on this Order of Business I would like to say this to the Leader of the House. First, as we all know a great deal has happened since we last met here. There have been various scandals and controversies. We have record unemployment. There has been the growing crisis in agriculture. There are the difficulties with the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. A whole range of things have happened since we last met. What I want — it is what my party want and is something from which the House could benefit — is a full scale state of the nation debate here during this session where we can, as a Parliament, address all of these questions. If we do not talk about them — and we are the only people in the country who are not talking about these issues—we are bringing the whole process of Parliament into disrepute.
Secondly, I asked on a number of occasions last session that we have a debate on Northern Ireland but on each occasion I was refused. I was told it was unhelpful because of the Brooke talks and, in fact, there may have been some justification for that. Now there are no talks. There is a political vacuum which has been filled by brutal sectarian killings and Northern Ireland threatens to go into full-scale civil war. I ask the Leader of the House, as a matter of urgency, to have a debate on Northern Ireland in this House so that we can analyse the situation and see if we have any contribution to make to fill the vacuum that exists there at present.
Thirdly, I would like to ask the Leader of the House questions. I have here two documents. Document No. 1 is the Programme for Government, 1989-91. In that there is a specific commitment to reform the Houses of the Oireachtas by the end of 1989. As we all know, that did not happen. In the document No. 2, of happy memory, published last week, the reference to reform of the Oireachtas is even more vague and in fact there is no reference whatsoever to this House in it. Everybody here knows that we need to reform our procedures and our work practices. If we do not we will lose what small credibility we have at present as politicians and the House will have very little real purpose. Reform will only come from within this House; it will not come from Government. There is no point in waiting for the Committee on Procedure and Privileges to do it because the Committee on Procedure and Privileges has failed to undertake this task over the past couple of years. I ask the Leader of the House today, as a sign of his good intentions in regard to reform of the Seanad, to begin next week an open-ended debate on the reform of this House so that all the groups can put forward their views as to how we think the House should be reformed. He could let the debate run until Christmas and at that stage bring together the various ideas which have been suggested and let us in this House come forward with a specific programme to reform the House. It is long past time to do this and this may well be our last chance to do it.
It is important to put on the record, without making reference to recent happenings, that politics and public life in general have been fairly poorly served by recent events, and I will say no more than that. We have an essential decision to make now, that is, that we make ourselves as relevant as possible to Irish public life.
In the ordering of business between now and the end of the session I ask the Leader of the House to ensure that all aspects of the major social areas of life are addressed in a regular pattern by this House. It is appalling, for instance, that today's business was set up without any meeting of the Whips. I am not saying tht in a critical way but I am saying it reflects a sloppy approach to business. I have no idea of the business that is likely to be addressed over the next couple of weeks. I can no longer justify to people outside Parliament why the House needs to be in recess for such a long period of time. I am not making cheap points here but everybody on both sides of the House knows this and we really need to be clear about where we are going. Politics have been taking a fair hammering over the summer and it is incumbent on us at least to establish for the Houses of the Oireachtas a sense of credibility and also a sense of relevance in regard to what is happening.
We have a debate tomorrow on Developments in the European Community, but I believe there is a deeper debate than that — the whole question of what is happening among Governments, between the member states on the question of the European Community and the decisions to change the Treaty of Rome. All of these will impact on us in a very serious way. We need to be seen to address those points — international issues and the issues which need to be addressed in terms of Irish life. I do not know what legislation we intend taking over the next number of weeks, what motions we intend taking or what topics we intend to address. I know the Leader of the House can stand up and quite justifiably say that the only business to be dealt with on the Order of Business is today's business. Perhaps we should start with that and wipe that out as a nonsensical out-of-date fashion of ordering business. We should know where we are going from now until the end of the session.
I know the reality is that the House is waiting to hear from the Government Chief Whip in the other House in regard to what we will be dealing with over the next number of weeks. We should start making demands. There is a clear need for legislation. There is a Programme for Government which was referred to by Senator Manning which we need to address. Let us get involved with these matters immedately. I do not see why over the next few weeks we cannot begin the process of initiating legislation in this House and also of ensuring that we address and debate those aspects of Irish life which are relevant to people everywhere.
I support the call by the two previous speakers for reform of our procedures here. I think they are long overdue. May I ask the Leader if he has any specific proposals arising from commitments he gave here some time ago to consider the situation after one of these Order of Business sessions which lasted for about an hour and a half? May I further ask what has become, if indeed anything has become, of the foreign affairs committee or has it simply faded away? May I ask the Leader further if he is prepared to give priority in particular to the animal remedies Bill arising from the results of the British survey which have been announced this morning? Finally, may I ask him if he can give us some outline of the Bills which are to be initiated in this House in the coming session?
May I ask the Leader of the House, in view of the report published yesterday in the UK by Mr. Robert May on the sinking of the Antares trawler by a British nuclear submarine, if it is possible that what happened there is a complete indictment of the British navy? We have suffered similar tragedies in Irish waters and there has been the strong suspicion that they were caused by submarine activity. I believe the truth of those tragedies is now clear for all of us to see. What is appalling is that these submarines, even if there was a possibility of saving lives, have tended to run and hide their activities.
Will the Leader of the House bring two matters to the attention of the Minister for the Marine? First, would he consider bringing forward legislation in the Dáil and Seanad to deal with these activities, because I am afraid that if they shift these British exercises out of UK waters they may shift them into Irish waters, thereby further endangering Irish trawler fleets, and we do not want to see that happen? Second, he should discuss this with his counterpart in the UK Parliament to make him aware that we are as concerned as they are for the lives of our own trawler crews. The Minister for the Marine should do this as a matter of urgency and the Irish Fishermen's Organisation are anxious to see some response in this regard. I ask the Leader of the House to take the action I suggest and report back to the House on his discussions with the Minister for the Marine.
I would like to ask the Leader of the House if he will make time available as soon as possible to give the House an opportunity of discussing the growing disastrous famine in a number of African countries. There is precious little being done about it. While I accept that we should be giving aid to Eastern Europe and helping the nations that are emerging there, we should also have an opportunity of debating the plight of the Croatian people. The Croatian problem is one that has been on the agenda for a long time. It would appear from media reports that the Commission and the European Community are talking about the problem while the unfortunate citizens of that fairly substantial country with a very old tradition are being annihilated.
I would like to support Senator Manning in his request to the Leader for time to discuss the question of the North because I would again claim that this House is entitled to discuss problems such as the North. While other discussions are proceeding — the Anglo-Irish Parliamentary tier is meeting in Belfast tomorrow — and there are several other discussions, this House can make a positive contribution. I think I am entitled to make this request, because things are evolving all the time. Part of this country is closed off by gates which are shut at night. I do not think everybody on the island knows this. I honestly believe that if part of Cork or Kerry or other parts of the country were closed off at night and you had to wait at a gate until the British Army decided to let you out it would be regarded as a more serious matter. I am asking the Leader of the House to ensure that time is provided to air some of the grievances and problems we have about this matter.
I would like to take up a point made by Senator Manning and ask the Leader a question arising out of the text of the revised Programme for Government. I do not know if other Senators shared my astonishment that in the section dealing with proposed parliamentary reform there was no specific mention of Seanad Éireann. Are we to take it that the proposed measures apply to this House as well as to the Dáil? However, the question that really intrigues me is why in regard to a House that needs reform of its procedures, to say the least, as much as Dáil Éireann there was no mention whatever of this House. Is this a measure of the contempt in which the Government partners hold this House? Is this silence a prelude to a more radical step? Is there a hidden agenda here? Perhaps the question I am putting to the Leader should be properly addressed to the three cuckoos in our nest over there——
I have to point out that I do not think the description is appropriate to the House.
It is very precise.
I, too, would like to join with the call for reform of the Seanad but I would not be as paranoid perhaps as Senator Murphy. I also believe that it is time we changed some of our practices and made the Seanad more relevant and more effective in it day-to-day work. If we have to do some of this work ourselves perhaps we could start by going down the list here. There are at least ten motions that are irrelevant and I think that some people who have them down should look at them. They refer to the Gulf War and other issues which are no longer as pressing as before. Perhaps they should have been taken at a more relevant time, but they are no longer really as important as they were and we could start by looking at the list here.
While I am satisfied with the motion that has been chosen for the Adjournment, I am not quite as satisfied with the Order of Business today. There is only one piece of legislation, that is, the Sea Pollution Bill. That, of course, is very much a formality because it is simply implementing an international convention, which is normally implemented or is transferred to national law without too much debate because it is part of our international responsibilities. Therefore, we are not dealing with legislation and it is quite unacceptable that this House should be facing a new term without any real legislation before it. I cannot see why the Leader of the House could not have brought forward at least some new legislation from that planned for this term. For example, surely we could have had the two Education Bills — the Dublin Institute of Technology Bill and the Regional Colleges Bill — in regard to which this House is particularly capable of initiating debate and teasing out the implications of any measures proposed. I would have thought that that would have been very useful. Even at this late stage, may I ask the Leader of the House if he will see about getting that proposed legislation to us at the initital stage.
Secondly, we should have a debate on the revised Programme for Government. This is intended to be the basis of policy-making over the next two to two and a half years. The least we could do is to have a debate on that and provide the opportunity for this House to examine those policies, particularly in so far as they affect the future of this House in terms of Oireachtas reform. I suggest to the Leader of the House that he would also include that in the matters that will come before the House in this session.
Finally, may I propose that we take as the first item on the agenda today Motion No. 42 which reads:
That Seanad Éireann calls on the Minister for Justice to investigate the recent widspread allegations of breaches of the Companies Acts, 1963-1990, with a view to instituting criminal prosecution where wrongdoing has occurred; that this investigation shall focus on insider dealing and non-disclosure of directors' interests.
We have established existing inquiries, and that is a good thing but where there are allegations of criminal offence it is our responsibility to ensure that prosecutions take place. That is specifically what section 194 of Companies Act states: that there must be prosecutions where there is a case to be answered in relation to an offence. That is a criminal prosecution and we have already had admissions——
I cannot allow you to debate it now, Senator.
We have had admissions that there has been non-disclosure in relation to Bord Telecom, in relation to Greencore——
If you can bear with me, Senator, I cannot allow you to debate the motion now.
We will be irresponsible if we do not concern ourselves with matters of the utmost importance in regard to what is happening in the country.
Like some of the other Senators, I am disappointed that the Seanad was not mentioned in the Programme for Government. I am quite disturbed about it. I feel there is need for reform of the Seanad and, rather than waiting for other bodies to do it, I would call on the Leader to use his good offices to set up an all-party committee of the Seanad. We could then hand our findings over to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges in order to get them implemented.
In view of the recent survey which showed that over 50 per cent of our people are afraid of being attacked or burgled and in view of the fact that 60 per cent have no confidence in our courts system in trying to combat crime, would the Leader of the House give time to discuss the present outdated criminal legislation with a view to updating it, especially where we have a situation where judges have no choice but to impose a small fine or send people to grossly overcrowded jails? I ask the Leader of the House to give time for a debate both on the level of crime and the lack of confidence in our courts.
I would like to share the concern expressed by Senator McGowan in relation to the closure of cross-Border roads and I am glad he raised this issue in this House. I am not so sure I would agree with his call for a full three hour debate, although I am sure that Senator McGowan could look after 90 minutes of it and I could look after the other 90 minutes.
I come from the county that perhaps has suffered most from the closure of Border roads, County Leitrim. Its natural hinterland with Fermanagh has been cut off without any access whatever by public roads. There is, as the Cathaoirleach and Members of the House will be aware, an active cross-Border support group which has been attempting to influence the political decisions and the military decisions on the northern side that has surrounded this appalling development that is cutting off the natural hinterland of two counties. Therefore, with the Cathaoirleach's permission, I ask the Leader of the House — and I am sure Senator Norris among many others would agree with the sentiments I am expressing — to convey the feeling of the House to the Minister for Foreign Affairs that this is an unfair discriminatory development and that it would be in the best interest of the people both of Fermanagh and Leitrim on all sides that the development be reversed so that at least the proposals that have been put forward by the cross-Border group and supported by most right-thinking people, North and South, would be implemented.
I am grateful to the Cathaoirleach for allowing me to put that on the record of this House. I invite my distinguished colleague and friend, Senator Norris, to visit the area on some occasion so that he can see at first hand the discrimination and the results of the discrimination on this issue alone.
I would also like to welcome in the joint Programme for Government the commitment of the Coalition partners to investigate the feasibility of granting voting rights to emigrants. I suggest to the Leader of the House, in the light of this commitment of the Government, that perhaps this House would be a proper forum for discussion of the feasibility of granting voting rights and that there could be a measured and reflective debate on the various issues involved in granting voting rights to our emigrants. I must put on record that this is a move I personally support. Perhaps the Leader of the House might at some point discuss it with the Whips on the other side to see if there could be time agreed for a debate between now and Christmas. I understand the joint programme indicates that a proposal will be brought to Government around Christmas.
As one who represents some of our exiled brethern I am very happy with Senator Mooney's enthusiasm for votes for emigrants. I hope we will make good progress.
I fully agree with Senator Cullen in regard to what is happening in the Irish Sea. It is a great pity that his party colleague, the Minister for Energy, did not show a similar enthusiasm during the Radiological Protection Bill to deal with the problems of potential pollution from weapons-carrying systems that pass through our seas and our air space. The enthusiasm would be a lot more convincing.
One of the phenomena on returning after an appalling and unjustifiably lengthy break is the long page of papers laid before the Seanad as set out in the Order Paper. May I ask the Leader of the House what No. 24 on page 229 referring to RECHAR is about? I would hate to have matters passed through the Oireachtas that we know nothing about: that would be making a further mockery of an already severely mocked institution. May I also ask the Leader to explain to me from the same list of papers laid before the Seanad why it is only this summer that the accounts for 1981 for three educational institutions — Thomond College of Education, Limerick; the National Institute of Higher Education, Limerick; and the National Institute for Higher Education, Dublin — were finally laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas? Even by the standards of the less than perfect institutions we operate in this country, a ten year delay in publishing accounts is a bit much. Perhaps there is some reason there that escapes me. They only get as far as 1986 for the more recent accounts. Who has been minding the books since in these institutions, or what has happened?
Finally, since there has been a huge spasm of open government and openness to the public engulfing us all over the past six or eight weeks, may I ask the Leader to indulge the House for what would take no less than two minutes by accepting an amendment to the Order of Business, which is that Item No. 8 be taken first? Item No. 8 refers to First Stage of a Register of Members of the Oireachtas Interests Bill. It is simply seeking permission to print the Bill. At this stage we are not about to demand anything else other than the Bill be printed. Given the commitment of what Senator Mooney, for the first time in my presence, described as the Coalition partners to this principle, I do not think there should be any objection to us at least publishing the Bill as a contribution to the debate. Therefore, I formally move an amendment to the Order of Business, "That Item No. 8 be taken before Item No. 1."
Several references have been made to the agreed Programme for Government and the need for Oireachtas reform. May I advise the Leader of the House that the programme says that the Government consider that reform of the Oireachtas is an essential prerequisite to carrying through a legislative programme of reform and to make its work relevant and effective to the people. Would he not agree that the word "Oireachtas" includes the Seanad? Would he agree with that interpretation? We must welcome the interest shown on the Opposition benches in relation to Oireachtas reform and, for that reason, I support Senator Manning in his request for a debate in the House so that at least we could get some detailed proposals from the people opposite as to what they mean by Oireachtas reform.
The court staff strike is of national importance and it is causing a great deal of stress. I would like to know if the Leader of the House can get us some information before the day is over as to whether the Department or the Minister for Labour are prepared to take any initiative in the matter.
I formally second Senator Costello's proposal that Item No. 42 replace the present Order of Business.
As a member of the reforming party in the Oireachtas I ask the Leader of the House to take on board the suggestions for a review of the operations of this House. Does the Leader propose to allow a debate on the operation of bank charges by commercial banks, particularly in view of the heavy burden being placed on borrowers, the harmful effect it has on job creation and the fact that the Minister for Finance on two occasions has raised this issue publicly? I raised this matter on previous occasions and it was suggested that I request it be discussed in an Adjournment debate. However, I was told that as there is a lack of ministerial responsibility it could not be taken on the Adjournment. In these circumstances, I suggest to the Leader that he might set aside some time for statements to be made on the issue to express on the record of the House the anger and frustration of many people.
I support those Members who referred to Oireachtas reform and a debate on this subject would be appropriate at this time. I want to ask the Leader of the House the position visà-vis a debate on agriculture. We talked about this matter during the previous session and it is timely that we talk about it again. We are coming near the end of season for farmers and the position has become more difficult. I ask the Leader to arrange for an early debate on the entire area of agriculture and the agribusiness generally, encompassing all aspects of the Common Agricultural Policy, GATT and so on. Quite frankly, farmers are in——
The Senator will have exhausted the content of his debate.
Will the Leader incorporate in the agenda the matter of credit for farmers because they are finding it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to get credit? I support the view expressed in relation to bank charges.
Finally, I would like to ask the Leader of the House if he could arrange for a debate on unemployment. We know it is not easy to solve the problem of 265,000 unemployed at present. However, I believe that a concerted effort should be made to alleviate the position. We should have an early and comprehensive debate on the whole area of unemployment. Nobody on this side of the House is naive enough to think we can resolve it but we can contribute to making it less severe.
I join with Members who have asked for a debate on the role of banks in Ireland.
Nationalise them.
My question will emerge just as your questions emerge, Senator. I would like a debate on the role of the banks——
Bank rolls.
Senator Lanigan without interruption, please.
I am afraid the Senator's efforts at wit or levity are not conducive to debate in this House. I am trying to make a point and if you decide you want to be a wit——
Senator Lanigan please adress your remarks through the Chair. Do not be provoked.
Step outside.
I have worked as a businessman for many years and there is no doubt that the banking system is totally immoral and amoral. There is a small group of bankers who think they can tell everybody what they should do but they make diabolical decisions themselves, for example, the Bank of Ireland and AIB in their investments abroad. They are now suggesting that perhaps in two or three years their investments in America might come back into profit. They are making profit in Ireland as they have always done and they have always gone outside this country to lose money. Their charges are immoral as is their attitude to small business people. If I have a computer that can produce forward figures they will give me enough money but if I go in as a small business person looking for a few pounds from them they will ask me to produce figures. Ninety per cent of the people in this country who are honest enough will not produce figures that will not stand up. The bigger you are the better you are according to the Irish banking system.
Ask Dermot Desmond.
You are an investor in some of these——
Senator Lanigan, through the Chair, please.
The Senator represents a teachers' union and they are investors in some of these bloody banks. So do not stand up here and criticise me for suggesting——
Senator Lanigan, have you a question for the Leader of the House?
The INTO are major investors in some of the financial institutions in this country.
(Interruptions.)
Order, please.
I ask the Leader to have a debate on the banking system. I suggest that the banking system in Ireland is corrupt. It dictates that people who want money cannot get it but those who have money can produce every type of plan to enable them to get more money. The farmers have been mulcted by the banks. They were given money when they did not need it and now the banks want their money back. We have heard criticism from the Labour Party and The Workers' Party of the tax amnesty——
I remind the Senator that he has put the question to the Leader.
The tax amnesty was not a tax amnesty; it was an interest amnesty. The Department of Finance gave an interest amnesty to people and, as a result, people went out and borrowed to pay their taxes. Now that they have paid their money to the Department of Finance the banks are coming at them to get their money back. The banks are putting firms and farmers out of business because they paid their taxes. I am asking for a debate on banking.
The Labour Party have been debating this since Parnell was a child.
I am delighted Senator Harte said that the Labour Party have been debating this since Parnell was a child. That is very interesting since the Labour Party did not exist when Parnell was a child.
Has the Senator concluded?
On 30 October in Madrid an international conference will take place which may produce a solution to the problems of the Middle East. I suggest that we send the Minister for Foreign Affairs a note saying that we agree that the conference on the Middle East should produce a peaceful solution to the problems of the Middle East and that it should take into account the fact that the Palestinians are the main people who must be accommodated.
I formally second Senator Ryan's proposal that we take Item No. 8, First Stage of the Register of Members of the Oireachtas Interests Bill, 1991, as Item No. 1 this afternoon. I would also have been happy had it been possible today to take Item No. 42 which deals with the question of criminal prosecution where wrong-doing has occurred. These are areas where I think recent financial difficulties are uppermost in the minds of Members of this House.
If we do have a debate I hope it will be conducted in a substantially different tone to that in the Dáil where at the conclusion of the debate vitriolic and sometimes personal abuse clouded the issues. From speaking to people in Dublin it is obvious it left them feeling deeply disillusioned. In certain instances we must wait for the reports of judicial inquiries, tribunals and so on.
I disagree profoundly with Senator Costello who said that our responsibility was to ensure that there is a prosecution in certain cases. Our responsibility is nothing of the kind. This is Parliament: it is not a court of law. We cannot ensure any form of prosecution. I was surprised to hear that because I have been lectured, inappropriately may I say, from certain sections about the separation of powers. This is a very clear example where the separation of powers comes into play.
I support Senator Mooney and others in calling for a debate on Northern Ireland. I would be very happy to place my views with regard to the closure of roads on the record again — they have already been placed there — not in a wash of sentiment but with facts and figures which show clearly that although it is regrettable and an inconvenience that these roads are closed, the alternative is death, serious injury, bomb outrages and so on. I have the facts and figures and I will place them on the record. If it comes to a choice between inconvenience and murder, I am sorry but some people will have to be inconvenienced. I look forward to an opportunity of placing that in a more expansive form on the record when there is a debate.
On a point of order, that is a disgraceful attack on the good motives of the people of Fermanagh and County Leitrim from a man who does not even know where the place is let alone the real issues. How dare he. I ask the Senator to withdraw that outrageous statement. It is a slur on the good name of people on both sides of the Border who are without access——
Point made. Senator Norris to continue.
I refer the House to the debate which took place previously. Very seriously and calmly I put figures on the record of this House which supported the case I made at that time. I know it is not popular but I am not in this House merely to be popular. I am in the House to put facts on the record.
The Senator has access to the North and the South. He would deny that to the people of Fermanagh and Leitrim.
Order, please. I must ask Senator Mooney to resume his seat.
I ask the Senator to justify that comment.
I recognised some of the faces on the platform protesting from the other crowd as we passed by.
Senator Norris, a question for the Leader, please.
I ask Senator Norris to clarify that remark.
You may not, Senator Mooney.
What is he inferring?
The Senator was not there.
I do not know at this time but if you put a question to the Leader on the Order of Business it would be more appropriate.
Since we are back after a very lengthy delay and in view of the suggestion that there is paucity of business, may I point to the fact that this simply reflects the lack of democracy in our society because the Government are basically saying that the only business that can be processed by this House is business initiated by them. In other words, they will not allow a Private Members' Bill to originate in this House. I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the fact that there is, for example, the Interpretation (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 1989. It is simple legislation which proposes to remove sexist language from our legislation and the substance of it has already been commended by the Taoiseach in the Lower House. I see no reason, apart from the usual dog-in-the-manger attitude of the Government, why we cannot take a Private Members' Bill. It is 30 years since a Private Members' Bill was put through this House. The whole thing is a farce. In an ironic way it is reassuring that we should be back in this wash of hypocrisy. I support reform of the Oireachtas. There is no need for a debate. We have already had the debate.
The Senator is having another one now. Sit down.
Am I to take instructions from the Chair or from Senator Honan?
The Senator took them from Senator Honan in the past——
And in the future.
——and maybe in the future. In the meantime you have to live with the fact that I must ask you now to put your question, through the Chair, to the Leader.
Does the Leader agree with me that there is not really need for an extended debate on the subject? All they need to do is to make the dates of the election of Seanad and Dáil Éireann coincide and enfranchise members of the nominating bodies. It is hypocrisy for us to talk about tinkering with the Seanad when we ignore the two principal reasons we have people who really do not want to be here as their first option.
A question, please.
I was phrasing a question.
I hope the Senator does not have many more questions because we will be here all day phrasing.
I do not think so.
I have shown considerable latitude.
The Chair has and I would be happy if he would show some to me.
I have, but you have allowed yourself to be baited, unfortunately.
I have one final question. It is about Item No. 5 on the Supplementary Order Paper, the repercussions of the European Court of Human Rights judgment. I would like the Leader of the House to confirm what the Taoiseach said at a Cáirde Fáil dinner a year ago, what the Minister for Justice said in this House 18 months ago and what the newly minted accord between the Progressive Democrats and Fianna Fáil allege, that they are going to reform the law in the light of the astonishing assertion of Deputy Tunney, Chairman of the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party, that he is going to oppose this. I would like to be reassured on the matter and to have a specific timescale. I have waited three years for this and I would like to have a date, please.
On a point of order, I am going to try to be as restrained as possible. I asked on the original point of order that Senator Norris would withdraw a stronger statement than an inference that I and those who propose the reopening of Border roads are somehow contributing to murder by illegal organisations in Fermanagh and County Leitrim. With all of the restraint at my disposal, I ask that the Chair requests Senator Norris to withdraw any inference to that effect.
I must point out——
I totally abhor violence and I certainly abhor violence by any section in the name of Ireland.
There is another way the Senator can raise this matter.
It is up to the Cathaoirleach, with all due respects. The Senator has alleged in this House that I support murder. He has made that allegation and I am asking that it be withdrawn or I will ask that you refer it to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
I would prefer that you do that than to make a request to which I cannot respond.
As Senator Norris's representative on the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and as somebody who supports Senator Mooney's point of view on the issue, I did not detect any inference, allegation or anything that should be withdrawn.
I have made my ruling on the matter.
We believe in free speech here and that is not happening.
I would ask all Senators to resume their seats now. I have made my decision on the matter. It is not a point of order. I am not asking for it to be withdrawn and it can be referred to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
With all due respects to my colleague, Senator O'Toole, the record of the House will show that Senator Norris said——
The record will speak sufficiently for itself.
——that he was against murder and that if it meant that keeping the roads closed would contribute to eliminating murder he would support that. Now you can draw whatever inference you like but I am drawing the inference that people who support the reopening of the roads support murder.
If the Senator will listen to me just for one moment, the record of the House will speak sufficiently for itself in relation to the remarks made by Senator Norris. I am quite satisfied that it will be capable of interpreting whether he is correct or otherwise. I call on Senator O'Donovan.
If I might obviate the situation, I agree totally with the ruling of the Cathaoirleach that the record of the House will show what I said. There is no inference that Senator Mooney——
Senator Norris, please resume your seat and other Senators do likewise, particularly those who have previously spoken.
On a point of order——
A point of order will have to be made by somebody shortly because none of the points made was in that category.
On a point of order, I would like to ask members of the public gallery to refrain from using rude gestures while Members of this side of the House are speaking. It is unbecoming.
That is something that you have brought to my notice. I have no knowledge of it. I would be very unhappy about that type of development but I do not think it is something we should discuss now.
There is a gentleman in the front row of the public gallery who gave me the fingers-up sign before I finished speaking. I cannot name him but he is wearing glasses.
That is not appropriate. There is another mechanism for dealing with these matters. I am quite sure that most Senators in this House are aware of the mechanism. It is not a question of people in the public gallery being involved in a verbal display or any other form of display either.
I must praise the Cathaoirleach for his great indulgence in trying to deal with heated matters. I support my colleague, Senator Harte, in relation to the courts dispute because that will bring the whole system of justice to a halt. Will the Leader get the up-to-date position from the Minister for Justice and, if necessary, ask the Department of Labour or the Minister for Labour to intervene? If this strike in the courts is allowed to continue it will create chaos and the public will suffer.
What is the up-to-date position with regard to the all-out strike in the Probate Office in Cork which is causing anguish to bereaved families and those looking for either grants of probate or administration? The office has been closed down for some months. That is not good enough. I would like to have the situation clarified and the Leader to report back to the House on both matters.
The Fine Gael Party would like to support the request of Senator Brendan Ryan that the Leader consider Item No. 8 on today's Order Paper as part of the Order of Business. We agree in principle with what it is trying to achieve and particularly support the concept of allowing Private Members' Bills greater priority in this House. If the Leader could indicate that he would either allow it today or even tomorrow we would be satisfied, but we would like an indication from him that in the next day or two it can be moved so that the Bill can be published. What happens to it after that will be up to the Leader of the House and the Whips. I very much support the point made and the principle involved of encouraging Private Members' Bills and allowing them to be published and, therefore, circulated.
(Interruptions.)
Senator Doyle, without interruption, please.
I am delighted to inform Senator Dardis who is concerned about the views of the Opposition in relation to Oireachtas reform that the Fine Gael Party have a 40 page document published on it. If he would like it I can circulate him with a copy least he be in any doubt as to our views on Oireachtas reform.
Fine Gael support the request of Senator David Norris for clarification of the point made in Item No. 5 on the Supplementary Order Paper. The Chairman of the Fianna Fáil Party, Deputy Tunney, has thrown considerable confusion on an area in which I thought we had an agreed procedure. If the Leader could throw some light on the Government's position now in relation to this topic we would appreciate it very much.
The Cathaoirleach mentioned earlier this afternoon that the Fisheries (Amendment) Bill, 1990 has returned to this House, the Seanad amendment having been passed by the Dáil. It was with a sense of alarm I heard those words because I hoped that sense would prevail in the other House. There are major consequential questions about sections 9, 12 and 13 in this Bill, as we pointed out in June when it was being debated in this House. I have no doubt that President Mary Robinson will refer it to the Supreme Court. It will be her first action to test its constitutionality and it is a shame when the Seanad pointed out the constitutional questions in relation to this Bill.
Senator Doyle, I merely relayed the message to this House and it is not a subject matter for discussion.
I am pleased to join with my colleague, Senator Cullen, in raising the issue of the report on the loss of our lives and the loss of the Antares which clearly confirms that the Royal Navy, and more specifically a submarine, were responsible. Fifty lives have been lost in the Irish Sea in such incidents over the past ten years. These are well documented. I am delighted at this stage to have the support of Senator Cullen and a rather watery support from Senator Ryan.
(Interruptions.)
We all know well that an Aer Lingus plane disappeared over the Irish Sea. Suspicions abound as to how that might have happened.
Was it hit by a submarine?
The general impression is given that it was exercises of some sort in the Irish Sea, possibly caused by submarines. I am very surprised that Senator O'Toole thinks it is funny. It shows a level——
(Interruptions.)
It shows what Senator O'Toole knows about the Irish Sea. The report suggested that there would be a 3,000 metre exclusion zone. Anyone with a drop of sea water in their blood would know full well that that is nonsense, impractical and unworkable. The real answer is that all submarine activity be banned from the Irish Sea. I join with my colleague in asking Senator Fallon to proceed immediately to invite the Minister for the Marine to take the report on board which is a total whitewash.
Ba mhaith liom aird an Tí a dhíriú ar an mBille um Thruailliú a bheas á phlé inniu agus, mar urlabhraí ar chúrsaí mara, beidh mise ag labhairt ar an mBille seo. Fiafraím den Cheannaire cén fáth nach bhfuil leagan Gaeilge den Bhille le fáil agam mar tá sé i gceist agam labhairt i nGaeilge. Táimid ag caint anseo inniu faoi leasú an Oireachtais agus leasuithe cuí a chur i bhfeidhm sa chaoi is go dtabharfaí aitheantas do mo leithéidse agus do dhaoine eile gur mhaith leo an Ghaeilge a úsáid sa Teach seo. An bhfuil sé i gceist ag an gCeannaire an Bille a chur ar fáil i nGaeilge. Tá an-chuid rathanna cainte anseo i mBéarla agus ba mhaith liom go mbeidís ar fáil agam i nGaeilge le go bhféadfainn iad a phlé.
Chuir sé áthas orm an tseachtain seo caite gur labhair Teachtaí Dála roinnt mhaith Gaeilge le linn na díospóireachta an-fhada a bhí ar siúl sa Dáil. Tá córas aistriúcháin againn agus tá ar chumas gach duine mé a thuiscint ach na cluasáin a chur orthu; cuireann sé as dom mar sin nach féidir liom cóip den Bhille seo a fháil i nGaeilge mar is dual dom agus déanfaidh mé troid go dtí go bhfaighfidh mé a leithéid.
I would like to point out, before I call on the Leader of the House to reply, that Bills coming before the House are normally in the English language by tradition and are only translated into the Irish language after having passed into law. I now call on the Leader of the House, Senator Fallon, to reply.
There were many questions raised. One which was asked by many Senators referred to a programme for the session before us. The Bills that will come before us during this session include the Patents Bill, 1991, the Milk (Regulation of Supply) Bill, 1991, the Health (Family Planning) (Amendment) Bill, 1991, the Roads Bill, 1991, the Irish Land Commission (Dissolution) Bill, 1989, an Electoral Bill, 1991, two Education Bills, the Dublin Institute of Technology Bill, 1991 and the Regional Technical Colleges Bill, 1991, and also the Liability for Defective Products Bill, 1991.
Bills which are expected to be published this session include the amendment of the Animal Remedies Act, 1956 — referred to by Senator Upton — which increases the penalties for the abuse of animal medicines. I know that Senator Upton will welcome that Bill as he has spoken on the matter on a number of occasions. I understand also that a Bill dealing with the control of dogs will be published soon, together with a Solicitors' Amendment Bill and an Interception of Postal Packets and Telecommunications Bill. Others include the Criminal Law (Evidence) Bill, the Criminal Law Bill itself, a Housing Bill and a Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill which will deal with the speeding up of planning appeal procedures.
Senator Manning asked for a debate on Northern Ireland as did other Senators and Senator McGowan in particular. I took a note when the question of Northern Ireland was mentioned of the clash between Senator Norris and Senator Mooney; this subject tends to bring out the best or the worst in us, whichever way you like to look at it and highlighted my concern about a debate on Northern Ireland in the House. I still live in hope that talks will recommence and I do not agree that a general election in Britain will or, indeed, should be a reason for talks not to continue. That is the position I stand by.
The programme for reform of the Seanad has been raised by a number of Senators. Senator Manning, who requested a debate on the matter, knows my views on it and I feel that I speak for all Members and certainly for those who are members of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges when I welcome the suggestion. It has already come very strongly from my own party members behind me both individually and from a little group that meets from time to time. It will be recalled that a debate on a motion on Seanad reform was held during the last Seanad. I think it was proposed by Senator Ross and it certainly aroused much interest. I think we are all united in our desire to see Seanad Éireann working to its maximum potential and I feel that an open and constructive debate on Seanad reform would be most beneficial. It would enable Members to put forward their views and proposals that the Committee on Procedure and Privileges could then consider them in detail and decide on their suitability and feasibility. My reply to Senator Manning is that I will arrange for this debate as soon as possible knowing it has the full support of my colleagues.
Senator O'Toole also referred to reform of the Seanad as did Senator Upton, who asked about a Foreign Affairs committee. The Programme for Government indicated that the Government will be establishing a European Affairs committee along the lines proposed in Report No. 7 of the Sixth Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities. I am also able to tell Senator Upton that the Foreign Affairs committee will be set up and I hope it will contain Seanad representation.
Senator Cullen and Senator Byrne referred to what I might call "submarine activities" which I was asked to bring to the attention of the Minister for the Marine and I will do. My reply to Senator McDonald is that I do so not propose at present to have a debate on either famine in Africa or a debate on Croatia, important as they are. I have commented on Senator Murphy's and Senator McGowan's references. Senator Eoin Ryan also referred to a Seanad reform debate. Senator Costello asked about an education Bill. They are Dáil Bills at present but I and the Chief Whip will continue as before to try to have as many Bills as possible initiated in this House.
Item No. 42 was proposed by Senator Costello. I do not propose to take that item today. Senator Kiely referred to Seanad reform. I will investigate and see what I can do regarding a debate which would deal with the level of crime which Senator Neville mentioned. I cannot comment very much as Senator Brendan Ryan requested on papers that are laid before the Seanad but as they are before us they should be investigated and examined by all Senators. Senator Brendan Ryan asked that Item No. 8 which is an amendment to the Order of Business be taken. The register of interests is clearly contained in the Programme for Government; I will read out the relevant part:
A register of all members' material interests will be established from September 1992 and available in the Oireachtas Library.
May I remind Senator Brendan Ryan that many Members of this House are members of local authorities on all sides of the political divide and registers of their material interests are available in county council offices. All members of local authorities must register their interests and I am certain we have nothing to hide.
Will you publish the Bill?
No, it is there already in the Programme for Government as Senator Dardis rightly reminded us. I will repeat what he read:
The Government considers the reform of the Oireachtas is an essential prerequisite in carrying through a legislative programme of reform and to make its work relevant and effective for the people of Ireland.
Senator Harte raised the question of the courts' strike which I will take up with the Minister for Labour. He seconded an amendment to the Order of Business that we take Item No. 42. Senator O'Keeffe and Senator Lanigan asked about bank charges and bank matters generally. I hope that some time in the future we will have a debate on the economy and if that happens we may then encompass many aspects of the banking system that they referred to.
Senator Hourigan asked for a debate on agriculture and referred to the Common Agricultural Policy. Tomorrow we will have a full day's debate on developments in the EC and he will have a glorious opportunity then to say what he feels about the Common Agricultural Policy and other developments in the EC.
Senator Norris seconded Item No. 8 which I do not propose to accept. He also asked about Item No. 5 and on that matter I understand that legislation to comply with the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in this case is being prepared and will be announced in the normal way as soon as possible.
I have noted what Senator O'Donovan indicated about the courts' strike and about the Probate Office in Cork. I noted what Senator Doyle said regarding the Fisheries Amendment Bill and I think the Cathaoirleach has answered the query put to me by Senator Ó Foighil.
Perhaps I did not hear the Leader. He had to make a substantial number of responses but I did ask if he would consider the possibility of a debate on the feasibility of providing voting rights for emigrants.
That matter was referred to. My apologies for not referring directly to it but it is there as part of the Programme for Government. It might be no harm, as mentioned by a number of Senators, if we discuss that progamme for two or three hours some time in the future. Senator Mooney's matter is contained in that programme.
I cannot allow further discussion on the Order of Business. I will not establish a precedent now by allowing Members to respond. It is for the Leader of the House to make his reply in whatever form he thinks fit and if unwittingly he excludes somebody from his reply I have to take it that that is what he intended to do. We have two amendments properly put and seconded. Senator Costello has moved that item No. 10, motion 42 be inserted before item No. 1. Is that amendment being pressed?
No.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The second amendment is in the name of Senator Ryan. He has moved, "That item No. 8 be inserted before item No. 1." Is the amendment being pressed?
Yes.
Amendment put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 21; Níl, 28.
Tá
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, Joe.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Harte, John.
- Hourigan, Richard V.
- Jackman, Mary.
- Kennedy, Patrick.
- McDonald, Charlie.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Murphy, John A.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Neville, Daniel.
- Norris, David.
- Ó Foighil, Pól.
- O'Reilly, Joe.
- O'Toole, Joe.
- Raftery, Tom.
- Ross, Shane P. N.
- Ryan, Brendan.
- Ryan, John.
Níl
- Bohan, Eddie.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Byrne, Seán.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Conroy, Richard.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Dardis, John.
- Fallon, Seán.
- Fitzgerald, Tom.
- Foley, Denis.
- Haughey, Seán F.
- Honan, Tras.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Keogh, Helen.
- Kiely, Dan.
- Lanigan, Michael.
- Lydon, Don.
- McGowan, Paddy.
- McKenna, Tony.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- O'Brien, Francis.
- Ó Cuív, Eamon.
- O'Donovan, Denis A.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- Ormonde, Donal.
- Ryan, Eoin David.
- Wright, G. V.
Tellers: Tá, Senators B. Ryan and O'Toole; Níl, Senators Wright and Fitzgerald.
Amendment declared lost.
Order of Business agreed to.