Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 12 Mar 1992

Vol. 131 No. 16

Order of Business.

Item I will be taken until 1 p.m. There will be a sos between 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. Item 2 will be taken from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. I suggest that the first spokesperson for each party will have 15 minutes and ten minutes each for speakers thereafter on Item 2.

May I ask the Leader of the House, in view of his agreement to a debate on the Greencore issue next Thursday, if he could ensure that copies of the report will be circulated to all in this House who are interested in the matter? At this point we have not received a copy of the report. In view of its importance it deserves at least one week's contemplation before we make our contributions on the matter. Again, with the guidance of the Chair and perhaps of the Leader of the House, I would like an indication how this House could immediately debate the difficulties in the meat industry generally, and particularly in UMP. I would like to have a constructive debate on it. It is not a matter of unloading our invective against the banks, the Government or any other party. There is a real crisis in the cattle industry and UMP is representative of the major problems that exist. I will be guided on whether we structure a debate on the cattle industry itself, or specifically on UMP. I ask the Leader of the House to agree to an immediate debate given the urgency of the matter, given the 900 full-time and 600 part-time job losses, and the number of farmers and creditors involved.

I agree with Senator Doyle. I do not begrudge Senator Raftery the Adjournment, but it is not the appropriate way to discuss such an important issue. We need to have a debate on the matter. In the interest of not causing recrimination — we had enough of it last night — while I do not want to push it, Senator O'Keeffe's demand for a debate on the banking system is further highlighted by current events. There is a considerable amount of documented evidence that Irish banking is bedevilled by short termism and by a definition of long term that only a banker could come up with, which is about five years. We need to discuss what is happening in the beef industry, what is happening to industry and what is happening in the banking sector. I appeal to the Leader of the House to let us have a long open debate on these issues. In particular, we should have a look at our banking system. Nobody else wants to do it. The Culliton report left it out. Most statements on industrial policy barely mention the banks. Yet, in my view, they are the major inhibitors to many enterprises. The subject needs to be dealt with. I invite Senator O'Keeffe to use whatever influence he has with the Leader of the House and with the Government so that they will allow us to have a debate on the banking system as soon as possible.

It has become affectionately called the "O'Keeffe initiative".

Thank you, a Cathaoirligh. I think I might have coined the phrase myself and if I can add a little political slogan which was attached to our party once "now more than ever" it is appropriate that we have a debate on the "O'Keeffe initiative". The banks are at the centre of the problem in the west and it is imperative that action be taken to prevent an appalling tragedy being visited on this very underdeveloped part of the country. Unless people begin to think of the food industry in the long term, and in particular the meat industry, we are going to stumble from one crisis to another, like those we are experiencing this week.

I welcome the motion on the Adjournment, but this matter is much too serious and requires much greater and more detailed attention than can be given to it on the Adjournment. In view of the fact that there are 900 permanent jobs involved, that some people are owed £1.5 million, and because of the enormous consequences of the closure of the UMP plants, would the Leader of the House agree that it would be better if this matter were dealt with by statements rather than by a full debate? Indeed, that would fulfil the requirements set out in Standing Order 29 as to a matter of public interest requiring urgent consideration. I am sure we could defer Item 2 — statements on the cost of motor insurance — because of the urgency of this matter. The time would be better spent dealing with this immediate problem so that we can air the matter in this House. If this House is to mean anything and is to be relevant to the people, this is precisely the sort of issue we should be discussing.

What is the position in regard to the milk agency Bill? A number of producers are worried about the delays and they are anxious to get this legislation enacted as soon as possible.

In relation to the debate on the meat industry, I am the first to agree that the Adjournment debate is not adequate, but it could be regarded as an entreé for the meal we would have subsequently. We should not rush into a major debate without an in-depth look at the facts. We should look at what we think should happen. We are not fully appraised of all the facts here today.

Finally, I support the call made several times for a debate on broadcasting. I am appalled that TV licence payers and the taxpayers' money was used to pay a coke-sniffing prostitute from Florida to air her views publicly and to crucify the wife and family of the man who was responsible——

I would ask you to withdraw that comment, please.

All right. I will rephrase it — to interview a lady of ill repute. I am not naming the lady. I do not know her name. We all know who we are talking about.

We are not having a debate.

My concern is for the family of the man in question. It was outrageous to crucify them in that fashion.

I want to add my support to the calls for a discussion on United Meat Packers. I would appeal to the Leader to consider making time for this debate, at the latest, next week. I also want to raise the matter that we are discussing this afternoon — that is, motor insurance. I am not aware if the time limits he proposes have been agreed with the Whips but, as far as I am concerned, they are totally inadequate. I find that either 15 minutes or ten minutes will not enable me to make a worthwhile contribution on this issue, particularly as I regard the action of the insurance industry as being an attempt to twist a very worthwhile report by Coopers and Lybrand into a whitewash of their performance.

I do not want a speech on that.

I understand that. I am simply saying that to have an objective and worthwhile discussion on this issue, as far as I am concerned, either 15 minutes or ten minutes are totally inadequate.

I support the request for a debate on UMP next week. The organisation caters for 20 per cent of one of our major industries — the meat industry which is vital to our economy. There are 900 families traumatised with regard to their position.

I would also like to ask the Leader when the Minister for Justice intends bringing in his promised Bill to decriminalise suicide. The previous Minister for Justice, Deputy Burke, gave a commitment to the House on 27 November to introduce a Bill before last Christmas. In view of the recent Supreme Court judgement, this has become more urgent. The Supreme Court found that a pregnant woman who is suicidal may have an abortion legally in the Republic. It is cruel and uncivilised that a person in such a position who attempted to commit suicide could be prosecuted. I ask the Leader, as a matter of urgency, to bring the views of the House to the Minister for Justice. The promise given to and taken in good faith by this House should be honoured by the Government.

I ask the Leader of the House to make representations to the Minister for Agriculture and Food and to the Ministers dealing with the negotiations in the court this morning on behalf of small farmers who put cattle into UMP and who have received cheques — I have a list of the names of small farmers in Donegal who are in serious difficulty having put in cattle to United Meats Packers after this document was published. The cheques are under the protection of the court. Those farmers put in the cattle in good faith. This is a separate issue from the serious problem we have here. They put in the cattle having seen the advertisement in The Farmers' Journal which stated that the agreement with the Examiner and the United Meat Packers group was legally binding and guaranteed that the sale of livestock would be paid for as normal.

We do not want a speech. This is an important matter. We will be having a debate on it and obviously all those issues can be discussed.

I appreciate your assistance, but these are very small farmers who have cattle——

You made your point well.

I ask the Leader to ensure that that aspect of the problem is well covered.

I would like to ask the Leader of the House when we can expect the Green Paper on Education. We did not have an opportunity to discuss or debate educational issues during the last session. I would like to know what are the Minister's views on bringing equity to the third level grant system. If we do not have the Green Paper soon another session of university life will begin without any effort being made by the Government to do something about the inequity within that system.

I support the call by Senator Dardis regarding the meat industry. I do not think a debate next week is adequate or, indeed, is addressing the matter. The facts are that by next Monday this operation could be wound up in the High Court. It is a matter of urgency. The call by Senator Dardis for a debate under Standing Order 29 is a reasonable approach to the crisis which affects County Roscommon and other counties; the closure of UMP affects 900 workers.

I do not want speeches. There will be plenty of opportunity to talk about this. You have made your point.

It has been elaborated on by Senator McGowan that not alone does it affect the families working in UMP but it affects the families who have sent their cattle to UMP. This is a national crisis. We should have a debate today because we are not sitting tomorrow. I am asking that the suggestion of Senator Dardis be taken on board. If this House is to address itself to something of national importance and to redress its image as a talking shop, a debate today on the cattle and beef crisis is in order.

I want to add my voice to those who have spoken about the UMP issue. I come from County Mayo and given that UMP have their headquarters in Ballyhaunis, this crisis is having a very negative and unacceptable impact. I ask the Leader to take on board the consensus that we should have a debate in the Seanad on this issue. As Senator Finneran pointed out, it is not just the 900 jobs that are affected. It is the whole fabric of rural Ireland through the input of the farmers and everything else.

The Cathaoirleach has allowed Senator Raftery an Adjournment debate on this issue. While this might be an entrée to a wider debate, it does not answer the needs for a wider debate. Since the Receiver is moving in today, we will probably be much better informed on this issue within days. Why not consider postponing next week's Greencore debate? That debate is, of course, crucial, but at this stage it is of historical interest. It is not as pertinent as UMP.

You made your point Senator, and I am sure the Leader will take in on board.

The Leader of the House should also take on board the view that we should have a full day debate: we should postpone the Greencore debate for a week or two to allow an urgent debate on this matter.

There are two other issues. I asked the Leader to arrange a debate on regional development in the west. I pointed out that in recent months huge meetings arranged by the bishops have been held to discuss these issues. Regional development is now more topical than ever in view of this catastrophe in the agriculture sector which is hurting the west more than any other part of the country.

Finally, I would like to add my voice to those who have spoken about the appalling programme on Ben Dunne shown on RTE two nights ago. I would like to make two or three comments. I have never met the man; but he has been vilified enough. He has to face the courts in America. If the punishment is supposed to fit the crime, he has been punished already. The prurience we see in the Irish media lately is——

You have made your point. Unfortunately, we have no say over television programmes.

——descending to "News of the World" standards. That this standard is now being followed by a State television Authority is unfortunate and regrettable. Since we are supposed to have control over RTE, I think something should be done about that.

I support what Senator Dardis and others have said about the urgency of having a debate on United Meat Packers. I believe it would be appropriate today, because today is the day the Receiver will probably be sent in. I had considered proposing an amendment to the Order of Business along those lines. Senator Hederman indicated that she would second this. In deference to the workings of the House and the fact that the Order of Business for today was agreed, I will not do so because I think it would be obstructive. I would also have been happy to move a motion under section 29 but perhaps somebody on the other side of the House might move a section 29 motion in order to get it discussed today. If they would like me to do it and let them off the hook, I certainly will. I have no problem with that.

I support Senator Neville's request that the Government bring forward speedily a suicide Bill. You, Sir, know there was an excellent debate on the question of suicide initiated by Senator Neville some months ago. We were given an undertaking that a Bill would be introduced.

Finally, may I refer to item No. 48 on the Order Paper? It asks that no Government representation should be present at the St. Patrick's Day Parade until the discriminatory attitudes expressed by the organisers cease. Would the Leader convey this proposal very strongly to the Government, especially in the light of the news this morning that Mr. Joe Doherty, a convicted IRA hitman, is to be made the honorary grand marshal of the parade. It puts the discrimination in perfect context, as far as I am concerned.

It is not appropriate for the business of today.

I also support what Senator Dardis said. It is clear that there is a consensus emerging in this House that UMP should be dealt with today. Unfortunately, on too many occasions, we find ourselves debating after the event. At the very least, there should be a beginning here this afternoon by having a discussion on this very important matter. There are too many jobs involved in the company itself. The effects on the local economy are enormous. Bearing that in mind, a Chathaoirligh, with your permission we wish to move the Adjournment of the Seanad, under Standing Order 29, to debate the future of UMP.

Unfortunately, Senator Cullen that is not the proper procedure.

We will submit a motion to you in writing this morning to move the Adjournment under Standing Order 29, so that this matter can be dealt with.

It will be dealt with then.

I would like to lend my voice to the calls for a full debate on United Meat Packers. There is no doubt but that this is a very critical time. There is not much sense having a debate after the Receiver has gone in. This is tremendously important in relation to jobs in the west in particular. It is also extremely important because UMP is the second largest meat processing concern in the country. In fact, its closure would result in Goodman having the monopoly in the beef business.

We do not want a debate.

I am explaining the importance of having a debate today.

Your point has been made.

It would be proper and right if we could change the Order of Business, and if the Leader of the House is willing to do so. There is a consensus in the House that we should do so to avoid a section 29 motion. Rather than having it brought in in that form, it would be better if, having heard from all sides, we could by consensus have the debate today.

Has the Leader of the House any furthere information about the progress of the Nicky Kelly case? Is the Minister for Justice making a statement on that matter?

I am also very interested in the beef crisis because we have a factory in Charleville which is affected. I too would welcome a debate on that issue. I find it extraordinary, however, that, given the amount of debate here this morning, there was only one request for a debate on the Adjournment. I would have thought it more appropriate for the Whips to have come together before the Order of Business and made some arrangement pertinent to an issue that is of such major importance. The closure of UMP will affect the jobs of 900 people. In the circumstances and in view of the business being ordered today, could I suggest that rather than having the Adjournment debate at 4 p.m. he would organise a two hour debate from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m.? That would go some way to meet the requests made in this House.

Given the fact that the Taoiseach has appointed a Minister with responsibility for Rural Development, would the Leader allow a debate on rural development that would take into account the Leader programme and other structural programmes for rural development? It would give Senators who expressed concern over a long number of months with regard to development in rural Ireland an opportunity to put forward their views in greater detail.

I would like to raise a subject which was touched on by Senator Norris. Will the Leader convey the concern of a large number of Members of this House that the Government will be sending representatives to the St. Patrick's Day Parade in New York and to the parade in San Francisco——

It is not relevant to the Order of Business.

It is on the Order Paper, Item No. 48. There is concern because the Grand Marshal of the New York parade is an alleged member of the Provisional IRA, and that other alleged members of the Provisional IRA will be taking charge of other St. Patrick's Day parades. There is a real danger that a false signal will go out from Ireland to emigrants if representatives of the Government are standing shoulder to shoulder with people who have been asked to wear black armbands because of the activities of the Provisional IRA and those who are in charge of the St. Patrick's Day parade. The Leader of the House might ask the Government to consider not sending any representatives overseas if the people organising the parades are acting in this manner which is, after all, supporting terrorist groups.

I support the call for a debate on the UMP issue. Without going into detail I think that if the suggestion that we wait until things develop was accepted we would wind up closing the stable door after the horse had bolted. Working in the west, I know the devastating effect it will have if the company ceases trading, even for a short period. We will not know the full facts until it is too late. I, therefore, think there should be a debate.

If this House is to be relevant to the day-to-day affairs of this country, we have to debate things as they are happening, and not always be debating post factum. Other debates were lined up, particularly the debate on banking, and it is a pity to defer them but even if it means deferring the debate on motorcar insurance, I ask that this matter be debated today. To put it in perspective, what may happen in the west of Ireland would be equivalent to ten times the number of jobs lost in a city the size of Dublin.

I support the request for an early debate on the UN peacekeeping. There are varying opinions on when it should take place but at the moment we are probably not fully aware of all the facts. I appeal to the Leader of the House to grant such a debate. I thank him for santioning a debate on Greencore but we would be willing to defer that to faciliate a debate on the meat industry.

In relation to the time limit on Item No. 2, I appeal to the Leader to leave the debate more open-ended having regard to the information revealed recently about 75,000 motorists currently uninsured. It is a serious matter and the debate, if necessary, should be carried forward to another day.

I would like to compliment the Garda Síochána on fine work done in Donegal in recent days which I hope will prevent further atrocities.

The Social Welfare Bill, 1992 will be taken on 2 and 3 April. On the Greencore issue, we will ensure as the day goes on that the appropriate copies are made available. On UMP, I made the Government's position clear yesterday and, subject to the Whips' agreement, we will debate the matter here from 4 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. today. On the motor insurance debate, we will allow 15 minutes per person and if it does not finish at 4 p.m. we can come back to it next week.

We will take Item No. 1 from now to 1 p.m. and have a sos from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. From 2 p.m. to 4 p.m., statements will be taken on motor insurance, with 15 minutes per person, and if that is not sufficient time we will come back next week or thereafter to continue that debate. From 4 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. subject to the Whips' agreement, we will have statements on UMP.

Will we have the UMP debate on the Adjournment as well?

That would be repetitious and would not be in order at that stage.

I am glad we may have an hour and a half to debate UMP but I do not think that time will be adequate. I am concerned that we may not be able to get sufficient information today to make worthwhile contributions.

As the Leader said, that is a matter for the Whips to decide.

Would the Leader agree to one and half hours today to start a debate we could continue next week?

I was going to elaborate on that. Two items have been arranged. One is the UMP issue pending at the moment and the other is a debate on the entire beef industry. There is a commitment to deal with both. In the past year the former Leader and I have always tried to accommodate the House. We will sit next Wednesday and Thursday and should the need arise we will certainly facilitate the House to make further statements or to have a debate.

There is a definite commitment to a debate on the banks but with industrial action pending and labour relations problems it would not be appropriate now to speak on that issue. I will come back to the Seanad about the Milk (Regulation of Supply) Bill. I have been making inquiries and I hope within the next couple of weeks we will have Committee Stage on that Bill.

On the public broadcasting debate, I made my own views on the programme in question clear yesterday. There is one comment I would like to make. I understand the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications will announce a new complaints commission soon. I note in the papers today that RTE admitted to an amount of public concern about that programme.

I have dealt with motor insurance. I will come back to the Senator with dates on which we might deal with the Green Paper on Education. On rural and regional developments, I gave a commitment yesterday to hold a debate on that.

Order of Business agreed to.
Barr
Roinn