Vol. 131 No. 17
It is proposed to take Items Nos. 1 and 2. Item 2 — Statements on the cost of Motor Insurance — will be taken until 6 p.m. There will be a sos between 6 p.m. and 6.30 p.m.
Item 49 will be taken between 6.30 p.m. and 8 p.m., which is the Independents Private Members' Motion.
No, Labour.
My apologies, yes, the Labour motion.
Would this House be in order in expressing our pleasure at the outcome of the South African referendum? I think we should note its outcome and look forward to the way ahead that has been opened up, congratulating all those involved, particularly Mr de Klerk and his regime on having put the question to the people and the people on replying.
I should like to thank the Leader of the House for clarifying the confusion that existed 20 minutes ago in relation to statements on United Meat Packers. The information I had was that it had been concluded last week at 6 o'clock. I am delighted it has been agreed to allow additional speakers. May I ask the Leader to confirm to the House that the Minister will be with us tomorrow because, with the news today of the 900 redundancies and the devasting effect in the west, in Charleville and in my constituency of Wexford, there will be many people offering to contribute and seeking a proper two-way discussion between the Minister and all in this House, on the outcome of this issue and the direction we now take. I would like it confirmed that the Minister will be present and that we will spend all day tomorrow on this vital issue.
Out of courtesy I wish to inform the House that as part of the continuing process of expansion of the Independent Group, we are happy to announce that Senator Pól Ó Foighil has joined our group. I will be so informing you, Sir, officially this afternoon. We have got word of some disaffected Members on the far side of the House and we hope to be entering into negotiations with them. At this stage we do not wish to state anything further and we will make the announcements in dribs and drabs.
There has been a long standing commitment from the Leader to facilitate a debate on the banking system. Now is as good a time as any to consider this. Senator O'Keeffe, to his credit, raised this issue which is now more appropriate than ever. Will the Leader indicate when he would consider it appropriate to have a debate on the banks?
I intend to raise in the House each week the number of people who have died, who have been murdered in the North since we first started to ask for a debate on developments in Northern Ireland. I believe that what we have to say on this issue is very important in view of the worsening situation in the North. I appeal to the Leader to facilitate a debate on the North.
May I remind the Leader that on his first day in this post he gave a commitment to reform the Seanad? He not only did that but made the fatal error — as some would say — of advising us that some of these changes would be in place by "the end of March". We are very close to the end of March and I am sure the Leader is happy that I have reminded him of this because he does not wish to breach his commitments. We look forward to him delivering on the first stage of the continuing series of developments.
I wish to put on record that I appreciate that the Leader has cleared the working arrangements for the next number of weeks. This is very useful. Will he indicate what new legislation the Government intend to initiate in this House over the next six sitting days?
I thank the Leader for outlining the programme of work over the next couple of weeks and in particular for the opportunity to discuss the UMP crisis tomorrow. May I express my dismay at the announcement today that 900 people are to be made redundant? I now call for immediate Government intervention to try to limit the damage. It is particularly important that something is done now because each day things will get worse. Unless we begin to take a long term view of the food industry we will see more and more of these crises unfold.
I support Senator O'Toole's request for a debate on the banking system. I noticed in today's Irish Independent that the banking charges were referred to as a “mysterious phenomenon” for which you would need a specialised course in banking manoeuvres to be able to understand them. It is highly appropriate that we have the “O'Keeffe initiative” on banking.
The banks understand that.
I welcome the flexibility the Leader has shown with regard to the UMP crisis. It reflected well on the House that time could be found to debate this very urgent matter. If we are to be relevant, it is important that we discuss matters of this nature as they occur. May I ask the Leader to make time available tomorrow to continue this debate?
I join with Senator Doyle in welcoming the developments in South Africa, albeit a referendum of the white electorate — we have to remember this — and I hope this will be an important forward step in initiating true multi-racial democracy and that they will be able to return to the international fold.
When is it proposed to take item No. 6, the report of the industrial policy review group, the Culliton report? We have repeatedly called for statements or a debate on this subject since we returned after Christmas.
I welcome what the Leader said about debates on legislation over the coming weeks. I thank him for giving us an outline of what will be taken. Following Senator O'Toole's point about Seanad reform, and the various proposals to extend the Adjournment debates, grievance time and special debates, may I ask the Leader, in line with the commitment he gave some weeks ago, to outline his proposal in this regard as soon as possible? Some months ago we changed protocol to allow a distinguished visitor to address the House, and I wonder if further consideration has been given to whom we might invite? Finally I noted what Senator O'Toole said in relation to the addition to their ranks. Will he confirm that he is in charge of the group now?
A vote of confidence was passed today.
That last query was not appropriate to the Order of Business.
I join with my colleagues in saying well done to the Leader of the House for the programme he outlined and his willingness to take on board many of the suggestions made, from time to time.
I want to raise two issues with him on the Order of Business. While I welcome the undertaking to continue the debate on the United Meat Packers crisis tomorrow, I believe that debate should be extended or, alternatively, will he consider giving time soon to debate the economic crisis in the west? The loss of 900 jobs is only an indication of the underlying crisis that will have devastating social and economic consequences in the west.
As you can appreciate, Senator and as you know, a speech is not permitted on the Order of Business.
I was not attempting to make a speech, I simply wanted to emphasise the need to have this matter discussed in the Chamber and to get an indication of Government policy on this issue.
My second query relates to the first, but it may be a separate issue. Will the Leader give me and the House an assurance if not a debate, on whether the Government are prepared to concede to a well heeled selfish Dublin lobby and cause further desolation in the west by undermining the trans-Atlantic status of Shannon Airport?
That is not appropriate on the Order of Business. There are other avenues where you can raise that matter, in fact, the matter for the Adjournment refers to that.
It is appropriate to staying in Government.
I am saying, Senator Howard, it is not appropriate to the Order of Business of this House today.
A Cathaoirligh, may I respectfully suggest that there might be a slight misunderstanding between us? I am asking the Leader to set aside a day for a debate——
Yes, but you continue to make a speech on the matter. If you wish, you may ask the Leader for a debate, but I do not want a speech, as I outlined previously, on that particular matter, or on any other matter.
With your permission, may I rephrase my question?
Certainly.
First, will the Leader extend tomorrow's debate on United Meat Packers or, alternatively, set aside a date for a debate on the economic crisis in the west? Second, will he set aside time for a debate on the status of Shannon Airport?
Would the Leader of the House refer to the Minister for Industry and Commerce an extremely important matter in relation to the Companies Act, that is the role of the Examiner. I think most of us understood that any transactions undertaken by the Examiner would be paid for in full. Following the difficulties in United Meat Packers it now appears that this is not the case and, therefore, the impact that the Examiner will have on the trading position of any company under his jurisdiction will be reduced. This is a very important issue which I would ask the Leader of the House to take up with the Minister for Industry and Commerce at the earliest possible date.
May I also ask the Leader of the House if he envisages having a debate on education in the immediate future? It is particularly important to have a debate pertaining to third level. While I understand a debate on the Culliton report is listed on the Order Paper, education merits a debate in its own right given that here in Ireland we have about half the number of start-up businesses other EC countries have and that we are still hostile in educational circles to technological emphasis in education. It would be a worthwhile debate and I exhort the Leader to allow it take place.
I am calling Senator Staunton.
That is three Fine Gael speakers in a row.
Senator Brendan Ryan, it is my prerogative to call speakers. I call them as I see them raising their hands or otherwise indicating they wish to speak.
I have to refute that.
I want to ask the Leader of the House, in relation to the United Meat Packers issue, to refresh his memory that last week when we spoke for a couple of hours in relation to that subject it was agreed between the Whips that that debate of approximately two hours was merely the start of a major debate which would be continued during this week and that the time which we had intended devoting to the Greencore business would this week be given up to the UMP issue if, as the Leader of the House said, "there are others offering". My understanding is that there are a substantial number of speakers offering, and today there is the matter of liquidation and massive redundancies. Again, as requested by one of the Members who spoke before me it is crucial that the Minister for Agriculture and Food attends the debate which should take place throughout tomorrow because of the critical situation.
I support what Senator Howard said about the west of Ireland. For a number of months I have consistently sought a debate in this House on issues dealing with the west where there is a vocal lobby and major meetings have been convened by the bishops and I think it is past time that this House showed its respect for that issue, given what is happening in Ballyhaunis, Arigna and elsewhere west of the Shannon. A major debate should take place in this House on regional development and the west of Ireland and I request him to arrange that.
I suggest this House send its best wishes to the people of South Africa, both black and white, because today was a momentous step in democracy in that a massive majority of the order of about three to one of the whites in South Africa voted in the polls for a new democratic structure.
I call Senator Brendan Ryan. Before he speaks I emphasise that it is entirely at the discretion of the Chair as to who speaks. Furthermore it is not in order to challenge the Chair's ruling in this matter and any Senator who does so can be, in my opinion, regarded as being disorderly.
Your discretion is absolute, a Chathaoirligh. There are ways of offering in this House other than by raising one's hand, something, incidentally, I ceased doing when I left school. However, I acknowledge you are in control and I have no problem with that. As regards apologies I should like to make it clear that last week I apologised to the House, not to the speaker whom I was happy to interrupt.
Together with my colleagues, I am happy to record our pleasure at the outcome of the referendum in South Africa. I am pleased particularly at the triumph of the African National Congress. After 75 years South Africans are on the way to a non-racial democracy.
I am in agreement with my colleagues that we should have a debate on the banks dispute. I am disappointed that Senator O'Keeffe forgot to mention it. The fact that the IBOA——
We are having a speech. I would ask the Senator to put a query to the Leader of the House.
Could the Leader of the House change the tone of a debate on the banks now that the IBOA have abolished bank charges for the intervening period? May I also ask him whether we could have a debate on industrial relations given the unprecedented fact that trade unionists are being sacked for implementing the directives of their union? That is not something we are used to in this country but is, perhaps, something which the AIB have learned from their American experience.
And from RTE.
Perhaps from RTE, too. It is not something that will do this country any good: it is not the way we do business. We need to look at industrial relations legislation to protect the rights of workers to work through the trade union structures, to look after themselves. What is being done in this instance is alien, something which I do not think any of us in this country wants.
I support my colleague in welcoming a debate on the United Meat Packers situation. Perhaps the debate could be extended to the apparent prevalence of what I can only describe as intervention junkies at the head of most of our food processing industries. The universal problem of our food industry is that it is far too willing to accept the quick fix of intervention rather than deal with the realities of the market. I am not the one who should be giving this House a lecture about the nature of the market economy.
Certainly we do not want it on the Order of Business.
I wish to join with my colleagues, too, in asking for a debate on the devastation of the west of Ireland, first, because of what it is and, second, because it might persuade my colleagues here to reintroduce, both in the media and elsewhere, the critical aspects of Maastricht which appear to have been suspended. What is happening in the west is a model of what will happen to us if we continue without having a critical debate on Maastricht.
Finally, I appeal yet again, with my colleagues, for an open-ended debate on Northern Ireland. That is something this House, and Irish politics, desperately need. The vacuum is being filled by those outside the democratic process. I ask the Leader of the House to inquire from the Minister for Industry and Commerce as to why, unprecedentedly, the back-up documentation to the Culliton report which we will be discussing in this House is not available to Members. I was informed by the Minister's office that I could purchase the material at the Government Publications Office. This is the first time a Minister has refused me access to Government publications. I do not know whether that is Government policy, Progressive Democrats policy or whatever but perhaps the Leader would ascertain the reasons.
I welcome the information the Leader of the House has given us in relation to the business of the House for the next few weeks. I am particularly glad to note that further legislation is being initiated in this House.
I welcome what appears to be a landslide victory in South Africa in relation to the referendum. This underlines the view of the vast majority of the white population that the dismantlement of apartheid should proceed apace. This is an historic moment, perhaps it is the last time there will be an all white referendum in that country.
Perhaps you can put a question to the Leader of the House.
Would the Leader of the House allow time for a debate on the banking system? It is becoming more and more necessary to have such a debate given the events which have taken place in recent days, including the deplorable suspension of workers in the AIB, and the information reproduced in the newspapers today, taken from the Consumers' Association of Ireland Limited magazine —Consumer Choice——
The Senator is making a speech; I asked him to be brief.
——which indicates that misleading information is being provided in relation to accounts and the services provided by the banks.
The Senator is still making a speech. Would he please ask a question.
Has the Leader of the House received any further information on the Nicky Kelly case? Has he spoken to the Minister for Justice recently? Would he bring to the Minister's attention the disgraceful activities which took place last night in Dublin which marred the St. Patrick's Day celebrations?
Again, this is not appropriate to the Order of Business and the Senator knows this. The Senator is making a speech on something that happened outside this House.
I asked the Leader of the House if he would bring to the attention of the Minister for Justice the sale of alcoholic beverages to under-age drinkers at off-licences; indeed, it is adults who buy the drink for youngsters. Finally, would the Leader allow a debate on unemployment and job creation given the news that there are to be 900 redundancies at United Meat Packers, 135 redundancies as a result of Express Courier Services going into liquidation and the threat to 215 jobs at Dublin Cargo Handling Limited?
As that matter is due to be dealt with during Private Members' time tonight, perhaps the Senator would leave it until then.
May I suggest that, in view of the fact that the Taoiseach announced it is his intention to set up a jobs forum, we should focus on the retention of existing jobs?
Senator Ó Foighil.
Mr. Hanafin rose.
Senator Ó Foighil is the next speaker.
Ba mhaith liom——
That is two Independent and one Fine Gael speakers——
Tar anseo agus beidh sé ceart.
My quarrel is not with the Senator.
Ba mhaith liom i dtosach báire a chur in iúl don Cheannaire go bhfuil mé an-mhíshásta maidir leis an Déardaoin seo caite nuair a bhíomar ag plé an UMP sa Teach seo. Níor tugadh cead cainte dom agus glacaim leis an gcúis nár tugadh é. Ach bhí sé socraithe ar maidin go mbeadh an díospóireacht seo ar bun ó 4 p.m. go dtí 5.30 p.m. agus ghlac mé leis sin. Bhí mise ag réiteach mo mhála le dul abhaile agus chonacthas dom gur tugadh deis do bheirt Sheanadóir ón taobh eile den Teach, an cheist seo a phlé idir 5.30 p.m. agus 6 p.m. Ba mhaith liom míniú a fháil, cén fáth gur leanadh leis an díospóireacht tar éis an ama a bhí socraithe. Ba mhaith liom a iarraidh freisin, ní amháin go bpléimis ceist an UMP ach go mbeadh díospóireacht chomh maith ar uimhir a sé den chlár seo, is é sin an Culliton report, chomh luath agus is féidir, mar gur ábhar é seo a bhaineann go dlúth le hiarthar na hÉireann.
Tá sé trí mhí ó shin ó d'iarr mé díospóireacht speisialta ar an iarthar mar gheall ar an gcaoi a raibh cúrsaí. Mar sin, tá mé ag iarraidh ar an gCeannaire, ar an gcéad dul síos, cén fáth gur leanadh ar aghaidh leis an díospóireacht agus gan a chur in iúl dúinn go mbeadh sé ar siúl níos déanaí ná mar a socraíodh. Freisin, cén uair a thabharfar deis dúinn iarthar na hÉireann, stádas Aerfort na Sionna agus chuile shórt eile a phlé i gcomhthéacs na tairisceana atá curtha síos ag Fianna Fáil iad féin.
Senator Ó Foighil, let me reply to your first query. In relation to the allocation of time it was agreed by the House that the time should be extended from 5.30 p.m. to 6 p.m.
There is an issue facing the Irish people at present which is of maximum importance to everyone on this island, indeed it is an issue on which we are going to have a referendum. In view of this, may I ask the Leader when it is proposed to have a debate on the Maastricht Treaty and if his reply is that he is waiting for the Government White Paper has he any information when that White Paper is due to be published?
I would not call into question your discretion in these matters, a Chathaoirligh, but traditionally there is a way by which speakers are selected. I have noticed that speakers seem to be selected from a list supplied to the Chair by the Whips——
That is not so.
——indicating the order in which speakers are to be called.
I call speakers in the order they indicate to the Chair that they would like to address the Leader of the House.
On a couple of occasions was a list not supplied by the Whips?
Never.
I am glad I misunderstood the position.
This has never happened on the Order of Business.
On the Order of Business?
I am not talking here about the Order of Business but rather—
I am talking about the Order of Business.
That is the point.
In relation to debates, other than the Order of Business, a list of speakers is handed by the Whips to the Cathaoirleach. I think that is a very bad practice. Personally I have no quarrel with that practice but I could see difficulties if the Whips did not want someone to speak. Am I correct in saying that a list is handed to the Chair in relation to debates?
In relation to debates, occasionally a list is provided by the Whips. Again, I have to say that this is not appropriate to the Order of Business, rather it is a matter for the Whips to decide. That is the way it should be handled.
Am I not within my rights, in raising that matter?
No, I do not think so. It is a matter for the Whips to decide, once and for all, who should be called.
I accept that. Let me say with the utmost respect and without wishing to contradict you that if this practice continues we could have a situation where the Whips would decide certain Senators would not be called where a time limit applied.
Those included on the lists provided by the Whips are called to speak at the discretion of the Chair.
Where a time limit applies certain speakers may not get in.
Can we move on?
I think I have a point. I will have to think about that matter now.
Those on the back-benches appear to be canvassing.
There are no lists for the Independent group.
We are listless.
I felt it was important that I say that. I welcome the decision to hold a debate on Greencore as the report deserves close examination.
The Senator will have to get his hands on a copy.
I will have to get a copy but, as I said, it deserves close examination at this stage. I will have a lot more to say on it. Senator Doyle mentioned that we should send our congratulations to the people, black and white, in South Africa and I am glad, a Cathaoirligh, you allowed Members to do this. That referendum for the Whites only was very important. It proves that colour or title does not make anyone more important than anyone else. I am also particularly pleased that a referendum took place because I believe a referendum on important issues amounts to pure democracy.
Senator Upton mentioned the mysterious bank charges. That is the reason I would welcome a debate on the banks. Indeed, these charges are most mysterious and it is very difficult to read a bank statement. It is worse than a phone bill, and that is saying something. I can assure the House that the one thing that will not remain a mystery when the strike ends is the fact that it will not be the banks which will lose.
I support Senator O'Toole, who is primus inter parus rather than leader of the Independent group in his call for a debate on the North of Ireland. I have been making this call for about a year, different excuses have been given but it is important to debate it.
Item No. 48 on the Order Paper has been superseded by the calendar so I suggest that it might usefully be removed; but before it is I wish to place on the record my pride in being an Irish citizen yesterday, St. Patrick's Day, the very civilised way in which the parade was dealt with in Cork by the Junior Chamber and the invitation from Bord Fáilte to the Gay group to participate. I hope the ancient order of humbugs will take note.
That remark is not appropriate to the Order of Business.
I am just explaining why it should be taken off.
It is not appropriate. Will you please address your query to the Leader of the House regarding the Order of Business?
With maximum agility, could I ask the Leader to convey to the Taoiseach, who I am sure will be very pleased about this, that I feel what took place yesterday was fully justified and that Irish people are decent, compassionate, tolerant and civilised?
On a point of order, is it in order to refer to an association as the "ancient order of humbugs"?
On reflection I do not think it is. Senator Norris should withdraw that comment.
I would prefer not to. May I remind you that these gentlemen sponsored a grand marshal who is a convicted IRA murderer and discriminated against an Irish citizen?
You said you would prefer not to withdraw the remark. In the interest of goodwill and peace among all people, I ask you to withraw that comment.
In the interest of peace and goodwill among all people, it is a point not worth bothering about so I will withdraw it. I will reserve my comments for another place on the Ancient Order of Hibernians.
Cén uair a bheidh díospóireacht ann faoi pholasaí réigiúnach, go mórmhór ceann a bhaineann le hiarthar na hÉireann. Tá mise, i measc Seanadóirí eile, tar éis an díospóireacht seo a iarraidh go leanúnach agus tá sé thar a bheith práinneach anois, ní amháin go mbreathnóimis ar an ngéarchéim atá ann i láthair na huaire midir le UMP, ach go mbreathnóimis níos géire ar na bunchúiseanna atá taobh thiar den oiread sin deacrachtaí a bheith ag baint le cúrsaí tionsclaíochta taobh thiar den tSionainn.
I support the calls for a debate on the banking system because when we examine regional policy we will see that banks have a huge part to play in the difficulties west of the Shannon.
Senator Honan.
For a while I wondered whether you saw me. When I was Cathaoirleach debate went from one side of the House to the other and I was not aware that there were lists from the Whips.
There are no lists.
I ask the Leader of the House for a debate on the banks. I would also like to support my colleagues and thank the Leader for the longer debate on UMP. I would like the Leader to include in that a statement from this House on the present status of Shannon. I support Senator Howard in that regard.
I support the appeal to the Leader of the House to set aside time next week for a full debate on the Shannon stopover, especially in view of the statement over the weekend by a leading travel agent in America that over 90 per cent of the trade there wished to maintain the status quo at Shannon.
I request the Leader of the House to set aside time to discuss the Culliton report; I welcome the proposed debate on Greencore next week.
I compliment and pay tribute to our Leader for his initiatives in the various areas referred to. The debate tomorrow on UMP is extremely timely and very important. Would it be possible to have a debate later because, as events unfold in this important area, a further debate after tomorrow would be extremely necessary and urgent?
I join Senators who have asked for a debate on banking charges. I previously raised this matter in the House, and I again ask the Leader if we could have a full debate at the earliest possible date on this issue. I join Senators who said there are hidden and mysterious charges here that people do not understand, it is deplorable.
I support Senator Howard in his remarks vis-a-vis Shannon and its status. Could we have a full debate on the status of Shannon? I acknowledge, a Chathaoirleach, that you said it is a matter for the Adjournment but it is such an important issue that it requires a full debate in this House over a long period. If there is any question of the Government changing their position vis-a-vis Shannon, it would be extremely serious.
You are making a speech.
Will the Leader of the House state if there will be a debate on unemployment at the earliest possible date because, as has already been said, the position is worsening daily?
We also urgently require a debate on the North of Ireland. I know the Leader will have a difficult task to accommodate all these requests, but I ask him to do the best he can to facilitate these debates.
I compliment and thank the Leader of the House for agreeing to a continuation of the debate on UMP. In doing so, I would like to say a word for the east and south-east which seem to have been totally forgotten in this debate. It is the sunny south-east but not on sun alone doth man live.
The constituency of Wexford has the second highest unemployment level in the country. The economic health of a county is often gauged by the level of unemployment. Eighty people have been let go in Wexford today and I am asking the Leader of the House to ensure that, recognising the problem of the west, an even-handed approach will be taken in the resolution of the problem countrywide.
It is necessary to have a debate on the banks' operations and, more particularly, on their role in the economy today.
Given that we had agreed to have the UMP debate from 4 p.m. to 5.30 p.m., I would like to ask the Leader of the House why it was decided to extend it to 6 p.m. because this wrong-footed quite a number of Senators.
I am very pleased that we will have a debate on the banks, but while we are waiting for this debate there is an ongoing dispute and I would like the Leader to convey to the Minister for Labour the concern of this House about the heavy-handed method used by AIB in dealing with their staff.
Will there be a universal system of indication in the House because when we have our hands up and are not noticed I find it very hard to know what the pecking order is.
Second, I support Senator Howard in his call for the setting aside of time to discuss the status of Shannon Airport. I have had a motion on this on the Order Paper for sometime and I would be willing to accede to Senator Howard's request. I am worried that Shannon Airport will have its status removed before my motion is taken. I wish to sound a word of warning to the Government in this respect. Some 2,000 jobs will be lost to the Limerick area if the compulsory stop-over is done away with. In addition, we must take into consideration the 900 jobs which were lost as a result of the closure of United Meat Packers Limited.
The Senator is not entitled to make a speech.
This issue is very important.
I accept that.
I support Senator Howard's call for the allocation of time to discuss this issue.
I am sure the Leader of the House will deal with the request.
My next point relates to a debate on education. I am somewhat alarmed that Senator O'Keeffe is now calling for this debate. I hope it will not be like the request for a debate on the banks dispute, which we have been seeking for a long time.
When the Minister of State at the Department of Industry and Commerce, Deputy O'Rourke, was Minister for Education we saw her in the House. Since her departure from that Department I have not seen either of her successors in the House. I am sure we would have had a Green Paper on Education if Deputy O'Rourke was still in charge of the Department of Education. I hope a commitment will be given to introduce a Green Paper. Alternatively we should have a debate on Education in the House. That would eliminate the frustration we feel about such debates.
I support Senator Brendan Ryan's call for a debate on industrial relations in the banks. I have received numerous calls from junior assistants in the banks who state that they have been subjected to intimidation in the signing of orders to deduct 20 per cent of their salaries——
The Senator is making a speech.
What do we say to people who ask us to support them——
This has nothing to do with the Order of Business for today, and the Senator knows that.
The banks issue is very much in order in view of the number of jobs in danger if this dispute escalates. The Leader of the House should ensure that we have a debate on industrial relations in the banks.
I thank the Cathoirleach for acknowledging my wish to speak on the Order of Business. I am a patient man and I compliment the Cathaoirleach on his patience but I am intrigued with Senator Ryan's mysterious system of indicating his wish to speak.
I support the call Senators Howard and Honan for a debate on the Shannon stop-over issue. As Senator Jackman said, the abolition of the compulsory stop-over at Shannon Airport will have an adverse effect on County Limerick and the midwest region. I would welcome a debate on this issue, and I appeal to the Leader of the House to allocate time for it.
I should like to thank the Leader of the House for extending the debate on the UMP issue. The closure of this company will have an adverse effect on the factory in Charleville which is close to where I live.
Many Senators referred to the need for reform of the Seanad. The fact that we have spent almost an hour on the Order of Business would seem to indicate the sooner that is done the better. I will come back to this point later.
I am puzzled by the criticisms by Senators on the other side of the House about the extension of the UMP debate. One of the first criticisms I heard here was that we were not able to deal with topical matters or matters of national importance. Last week we were asked to allocate time for a debate on a most important issue which will affect the livelihoods of many people. We agreed to this debate which was extended by agreement of the House and the Minister.
It was extended in the hope that it would not be continued this week.
With all due respects——
The Senator was not here.
It was sharp practice which luckily has been reversed.
I was told by the Government Whip it was not to be continued this week.
The Leader should be allowed continue without interruption.
They were hoping that they would not have to continue it this week so as to catch people off guard.
The Leader without interruption, please.
I was here.
Ask Senator Eoin Ryan. At 2 p.m. today there was to be no debate this week.
Please, Senator Doyle. The Leader without interruption.
On a point of order——
The Leader without interruption, please.
On a point of order——
The Leader is on his feet and I want him to continue.
I find the Senator's comments extraordinary. All I can say is that I made it absolutely clear at the start of business that this side of the House recognised the need for further statements to be made on this issue. Perhaps the Senator has her own reasons for saying that I wanted the debate to be shorter. Those who were here last week had an opportunity to contribute to the debate and it was made clear——
That is not true.
Those who were present in the House had the opportunity to speak. Those who thought it was important to be in the House got an opportunity to speak on that most important issue. I wish to stress — the record will show this — that the debate was extended with the agreement of the House. There was no sharp practice involved, a remark which I resent. It was agreed by those in the House that the debate should be extended.
Why is it not on the Order Paper for this week?
I wish to repeat——
The Leader without interruption, please.
It should have been on the Order Paper for this week if it was promised last week.
The Leader without interruption.
We agreed to have further statements on the issue tomorrow. This can be agreed between the Whips after the Order of Business.
Senator O'Keeffe referred to the various implications of the Companies Act in connection with this file. I understand the Minister is looking at this at present. Some Senators asked for an extention of the debate on the beef industry. A commitment has been given in the House to have a further debate on this issue. I do not think it would be in the interests of the industry if we extended the debate to the entire beef industry. We will leave that for another day.
I also welcome the results of the referendum in South Africa. I wish everyone in that country well in the aftermath of the referendum.
With regard to a request for debate on the bank strike, a commitment has been given to have that debate. As an industrial dispute is taking place I do not believe it would be proper to have a debate on this issue in the House. As soon as the dispute is concluded successfully this House will have an opportunity to debate the banking system and the role of the banks in our economy. A debate on the Culliton report will be held on 8 or 9 April.
Senator O'Toole referred to new legislation. As I said, I will soon have information on this. I have met with the new Government Chief Whip and I know that at least two Bills will come before this House. I hope shortly to have definite information on these.
Many Senators referred to the Green Paper on Education. We will await the publication of the Green Paper before we have a debate on education. I have no doubt that previous Ministers' for Education were more than willing to come into the House to debate educational issues. I am sure the present Minister will be more than willing to come to the House to debate educational issues of importance.
Senator Lydon and others referred to the need for a debate on the Maastricht Treaty and its implications. I understand that a White Paper on this issue will be issued either this week or next week. This House will then be ready to debate this matter. I gave a commitment last week that a debate would be held on the western economy and regional development. The wording of a motion on this issue will be formulated with the agreement of the Whips.
Senator O'Toole was worried that reforms would not be introduced by the end of this month. I am more than hopeful that the points raised by Senators O'Toole, Cosgrave and others in regard to reform will be discussed at the next meeting of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. Hopefully there will be all-party agreement to these reforms. I understand that the proposed amendments to Standing Orders which were sent by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges to the various parties have been agreed. These relate to Private Members' time, motions on the Adjournment, a fixed time for the Adjournment of the House, statements to the House, matters of concern to Members, research facilities and Standing Order 29. I sincerely hope these reforms can be put in place in the not too distant future. I gave a commitment that these reforms would be introduced during March and it will not be my fault if this is not the case. I hope the Committee on Procedure and Privileges will ratify the reforms so that they can be brought before the House as soon as possible in the interest of the efficient running of the House. I think everyone will agree that spending one hour debating the Order of Business is not in the best interests of the House.
Senator Dardis wishes to raise a point of order.
I understood points of order took precedence over the other business of the House. As one of the few Senators who was here last week I can confirm that the question proposing an extension of the UMP debate was put by the Chair and carried without dissent from any quarter.
That is not a point of order but I accept the Senator's point.
The point is, why was it not extended?
The Senator was not here. She had gone home; she had no interest in the matter.
The Government side cannot pull the wool over our eyes that easily.
