It is proposed to take item No. 1 until 12 noon. It is proposed then to take item No. 2, statements on United Meat Packers Limited until 4 p.m. Each speaker shall be limited to 20 minutes and there will be no sos today.
Order of Business.
I would like to establish which Minister will be replying to item No. 2. I sincerely hope the Minister for Agriculture and Food will be present because we were promised last week a full day discussion on the crisis at UMP which, in fact, has worsened considerably since then.
There is just one matter I would like to raise, and it deals with the ordering of business, particularly the ordering of items such as Nos. 12 and 13 on the Order Paper. The Leader indicated to the House yesterday that he was pressing ahead with moves to reform the Seanad. One very important way in which the House could be improved and reformed would be if the Government would act in less than the dog in the manger way that traditionally all Governments have acted and if they would use this House in the appropriate fashion to permit legislation to emerge for discussion from the Independent benches. I would like to remind the Leader that it is now about 40 years since any legislation made it through to the Statute Book from the Independent benches of this House.
I believe the process whereby individual Members can put forward non-controversial matters for discussion is an important part of the democratic process.
Item No. 12, the Register of Members of the Oireachtas Interests Bill, 1991, is in the name of Senator Brendan Ryan and there is some general degree of agreement on it. In regard to item No. 13 in my name, the Interpretation (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 1989, the previous Taoiseach, Deputy Haughey, indicated in the Dáil he felt this was necessary and should pass into law. It would strengthen the appearance of democracy in this House if a simple uncontroversial Bill like the Interpretation (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, which would remove sexist language from our legislation, was permitted to pass into law from a source other than inevitably and invariably the Government benches. Will the Leader be so kind as to comment upon this matter?
Will the Leader make time available for debate on the Law Reform Commission report, which was published this morning? While I make this request, I was a little puzzled that this should be the lead news story on the RTE news bulletins at 8 a.m. and 9 a.m. this morning. It would be useful if we had a debate on this subject at some stage in the future.
Will the Leader state what he has in mind with regard to Statements on the Role of Seanad Éireann? Is he proposing to allow further statements on the role of the Seanad or does he envisage that Members will respond to his proposals?
I should like to request a debate on air transport and our airports. I know the Minister for Tourism, Transport, and Communications, Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn, will be amenable to my request because of her commonsense and good judgment. People outside of Dublin are experiencing terror in their hearts and minds because of what is happening in the west. This morning airline pilots expressed their concern at the proposed new EC regulations on flying hours. Although I am not concerned about some pilots, I am concerned about the status of Shannon Airport. I appeal to the Cathaoirleach to use his influence to ensure that we have a debate on air transport.
It is appropriate that I speak immediately after Senator Honan because I support what she said. I wish to raise a number of matters with the Leader. First, I wish to express my disappointment that he did not comment this morning on the request I made yesterday, which was supported by many Members, for a debate on the economic crisis in the west which would encompass the status of Shannon Airport. I presume the Leader will look more favourably on Senator Honan's request. I am not too concerned whose request he responds to as long as the problems of the west are addressed. I want the Leader to invite the Taoiseach to the House to tell us what Government policy is in relation to the west. I want him to arrange for the Seanad to debate an action plan for the west. I am concerned, as is Senator Honan and others, that the fate that befell mid-Connacht this week could be the fate of the mid-west next week.
It will be the fate of Ireland after Maastricht.
Can the Leader arrange such debate to give us an opportunity to establish if there is a Government policy to deal with the economic problems of the west or is it the policy that every worthwhile economic activity should close down?
I ask the Leader to ensure that the Minister for Agriculture and Food attends here his afternoon to take the statements on United Meat Packers. It is important that we establish the status of farmer creditors and other creditors who got cheques under the protection of the High Court. The Minister is the person to answer that question. Item 2 on the Order Paper reads: "Statements on United Meat Packers (resumed)". My understanding is that those statements concluded last week. On the Order of Business last week and this week many Senators requested that we be allowed statements on United Meat Packers. However, not many offered last week when we debated the matter. Matters have moved on considerably since then in respect of the liabilities of the company which are put at £60 million and the debts which are estimated at £6.5 million. Why would it be desirable for people who contributed last week to contribute again this week? Perhaps the Leader can give his views on that.
I support the call for a debate on the Law Reform Commission's report on the Civil Law of defamation in which we must balance the citizen's right to their good name against free reporting. It would be useful, given the importance of that document, if we would find time between now and Easter to discuss the matter.
I support the request by Senators Upton and Dardis for a debate on the Law Reform Commission's report on civil defamation. I asked for such a debate prior to Christmas and you, a Chathaoirligh, were interested in it at that time. This House should have an input into the final report and its views should be made available to the Law Reform Commission through a debate in this House.
I also ask the Leader for an early debate on urban crime in view of the level of violence in Dublin over St. Patrick's weekend and in view of the statement by Garda representatives that they did not have the resources to combat crime. The area of youth alienation is more than a Garda problem. We had an Adjournment Debate on 5 March when the Minister for Justice, Deputy Flynn, gave his views. It is necessary to have a full debate on the growth in urban crime and how to tackle this problem.
I would like also to ask for a further debate on the reform of the Prison Service in view of the tragic event of yesterday morning when another prisoner committed suicide, despite reports that changes should be made in the prisons to prevent suicides. Reform of the Prison Service is approached in a slovenly way by the Minister and the Department of Justice. Does the Leader have a reply to my request of last week on whether the Minister for Justice is likely to introduce a Bill to decriminalise suicide? I support Senator Norris's view that Private Members' time be used for such a debate.
When will the Leader introduce Committee Stage of the Milk (Regulation of Supply) (No. 2) Bill, 1991, which is of concern to many people?
I wish to ask the Leader for a debate on air transport. Coming from the south-west I support the retention of the Shannon stop-over. It is extremely difficult for people from Germany wishing to travel to Ireland to get direct flights. It was brought to my attention recently that the only existing flights from Dusseldorf to Dublin now stop over at Bristol. It is very difficult to travel to the south-west or west because one has to go through four airports. This is ludicrous. The overall situation with regard to air fares should be debated. I support the call for a debate on air transport.
Has the Leader ascertained from the Minister for Industry and Commerce the reason he is refusing to supply us with copies of the reference documents to the Culliton Report? I paid £45 for a selection of reference documents in the Government Publications Sales Office. I can afford to pay for them; I am not objecting to paying for them in principle, but I would like to know if there has been a change in policy? In the past they were supplied to Members of the Oireachtas, which is the correct procedure because we are responsible for the development in these areas. Perhaps, this is Progressive Democrats policy of value for money, to make us appreciate what we get by paying for it.
I am tempted to say there is one for everyone in the audience. Sorry for that interruption.
We did not get it.
I forgive you, a Chathaoirligh. It is nice to see you in good humour this morning.
The second issue on which I want to vigorously support my colleagues is the request for a debate on regional policy in Ireland, and specifically the imbalance between the eastern and the western regions. It is an issue which touches on the debate we will have later on the Shannon stop-over. I want to ask my colleagues a question: if they cannot sort out a regional policy which looks after regions within this small island, how can they believe that economic and monetary union will be able to develop a regional policy which will look after this tiny region within Europe? I invite them to consider the contradiction between the two. We are watching a region in this island go down the tubes; what do they expect would happen to this small region within Europe?
I support the call for a debate on air transport. I hope it will be a balanced debate and that we will look at how the Shannon stop-over affects revenue to the Exchequer. We are concerned about the problems of the west, but we need to take into account the problems of the eastern region and of the capital city. I would ask that this will not be an emotive or divisive debate.
I support the call for a full debate on the Shannon stop-over in view of the statement made over the weekened by a leading travel agent in the United States who said that between 80 per cent and 90 per cent of the travel trade wished the status quo at Shannon to be maintained.
I would like to go further than other speakers. First, I support Senator Honan. I ask the Leader of the House to ask the Taoiseach to appoint a Minister for regional development. We should have Government commitment to the regions in the light of economic and monetary union and at a time when SFADCo is being undermined. We should enhance the role of SFADCo; it should be a blueprint for the other regions. I know Members will support me when I ask for the appointment of a Minister for regional development.
I hope all those who wish to contribute on item No. 2 will get an opportunity to do so. I agree with Senator Dardis; in the light of changing events, that those Senators who contributed last week should not be allowed speak again but Standing Orders do not allow that. As this is a special debate on a very important item and circumstances have changed, Members should be allowed to comment on the up-to-date position. Will the Leader of the House allow an early debate on the Law Reform Commission's report which deals with a number of issues, including defamation and privilege? I hope we will be given an opportunity to discuss all these issues soon.
That issue was dealt with yesterday. I know the Leader of this House will allow the debate that has been promised before the end of this month, and we will hold him to that.
Is that the question or the answer?
Will the Leader allow a debate on the proliferation of drugs? It is a source of major concern that drugs are so readily available because tremendous hardship and trauma have been caused for many families by untimely deaths. I ask for this debate because post-1992 customs barriers will be removed. I have already expressed concern that drug smuggling is increasing at an alarming rate, particularly in the south-west. According to a report in one of the newspapers this morning students are peddling drugs. It is time this House looked seriously at this issue to see what we can do having regard to the fact that the Customs and Excise service will be rationalised.
Will the Leader of the House get in touch with RTE again? We spoke about them a few days ago about an issue which arose in Florida. In this morning's newspapers we have the extraordinary report that the Catholic Press Office felt it necessary to issue a statement regarding discrimination. The Hierarchy met recently to discuss their views on the abortion issue. They gave a substantial television interview, which was not relayed, in a programme which dealt with matters such as the US election, which is not due to take place until next November, and apparently, the journalist involved said these issues were more important. It seems that the attitude of the national television station to what happened in Florida and in this——
As the Senator is aware, this is not relevant to the Order of Business.
It may not be terribly relevant but it is important that I put a question to the Leader of the House; if statements were allowed on the Florida issue——
It is not relevant.
They have not struck a balance. This is unfair and amounts to discrimination.
In relation to the debate on UMP I support the proposal that those who spoke last week be allowed to speak again today. The Government did not include this item on the Order Paper last week when the issue was dealt with. Having regard to the fact that circumstances have changed, there should be an open debate on this issue and Members should have the right to speak. I hope the Leader concedes that point.
Finally, I seek a debate on air transport. Recently I pointed to the anomaly that there is no reciprocal arrangement between Aer Lingus and Ryanair. This is to the disadvantage of the Irish traveller. The Minister, given the Government input into Ryanair as well as Aer Lingus, should start knocking heads together to ensure reciprocation.
There is an ancient prophesy that one day the Taoiseach will address Seanad Éireann. Does the Leader think there is any remote chance of this being fulfilled?
A Chathaoirligh, I would like to know what criteria are used in selecting speakers on the Order of Business.
I dealt with this process yesterday. I pointed to the relevant Standing Order. I and I alone decide who speaks. I am endeavouring to be fair to everyone as they indicate.
You also pointed out that you called speakers when they indicated to you that they would like to address the House. I put up my hand at the beginning——
The Senator must appreciate that it is impossible for me to call everybody at the one time.
Do we have to catch your eye or wink? I have been trying to get in and I have my hand up for a long time.
Is the Senator speaking or being disorderly? I will consider him to be disorderly if he continues in this way.
I would like criteria to be drawn up to make the position clearer. In relation to item No. 2 — statements on United Meat Packers — these statements had been completed; it was agreed that the time limit should be extended by half an hour. We could hardly resume on a matter that had been concluded. We thought at the time that was the end of the matter. It is proper that those who spoke last week should be allowed to speak again if the debate is to be reopened.
In relation to item No. 17 — Prison Reform Bill, 1992 — I ask the Leader to allow Members on this side of the House to introduce legislation. Indeed this may well be the forum for a debate on prison reform. It is a tragedy that another young man has died in prison having regard to the fact that the advisory group set up by the Government reported last August and their recommendations have not been implemented.
Let me refer the Leader of the House to item No. 45, a motion dealing with the Nicky Kelly case. We have been waiting five months for the Attorney General to advise the Government on what should be done in relation to a presidential pardon. The Leader should respond on that issue also.
I also seek a debate on the banking system, with particular reference to Allied Irish Banks having regard to the fact that yesterday they suspended a further 100 members of their workforce. All these issues should be debated, but all we are getting are promises. In relation to unemployment and job creation, will there by any jobs left when we finally come to debate this issue? It was announced this morning that there are to be 600 redundancies at United Meat Packers in addition to the 135 announced yesterday by Express Couriers.
The Senator is making a speech. He should ask the Leader a question.
Tomorrow 220 jobs will go at Dublin Cargo Handling Limited. Will the Leader allow this debate before there are no jobs left in the country? Finally we should also discuss the report of the Law Reform Commission which deals with defamation.
I welcome the report in the newspapers this morning which states that a further £200 million is to be spent by the Minister for the Environment. I support those who requested that Members be given a copy of the Culliton report, which is probably the most important report ever produced in relation to employment, so that they will be able to formulate their submissions. Having regard to the fact that many Members are seeking a debate on air transport with particular reference to Shannon and Dublin, we should combine this debate with a full debate on broadcasting given that the one Minister is responsible for both. In relation to communications the pattern has changed during the last few months.
The Senator is making a speech.
It is important that we discuss this matter before the amendments to the Bill are published.
Iarraim ar an Cheannaire go gcuirfí díospóireacht ar siúl faoi réigiúnachas. Táimid ag caint faoi dhrochstaid an iarthair agus faoin Culliton report. Tá an dá ábhar bainteach le chéile agus dá gcuirfí iad in aon rún amháin d'fhéadfaí díospóireacht cheart a reachtáil faoi na ceisteanna tábhachtacha seo.
A Chathaoirligh, I am disappointed at the questioning of your decisions as regards calling speakers on the Order of Business. I have been in this House for some time and I have never seen the Cathaoirleach questioned in such an undignified manner.
That is a matter for the Chair to decide, as you can understand, Senator Kiely.
Everyone cannot speak at the one time and I am happy to be called in turn.
Yesterday 21 speakers were offering while today 19 have been offering. It is quite impossible to allow everyone to speak together.
I would like to ask the Leader of the House, as I asked a week or a fortnight ago, about a debate on the broadcasting system. I am prompted by what Senator Myles Staunton said today to request such a debate. There seems to be a biased policy as regards the selection of items for broadcasting on television and radio. Therefore a debate on broadcasting is very much needed. I also support Senator Honan regarding a debate on air transport.
Mr. Farrell
I wish to record my disapproval of Senator Costello's attack on you, a Chathaoirligh. You have been scrupulously fair since taking the Chair.
That is a matter for the Chair to decide.
Mr. Farrell
Some Senators think they have a God-given right to be first on everything. It is very unfair of Senator Costello to call you to order for not giving justice, because you are more than fair.
On the question of the Halal debate, the Leader of the House went out of his way to provide for a long debate on that matter. Before I call on the Leader I would point out that it is a matter for the House to decide whether it wants to treat item No. 2 as a completely new debate. I am sure the Leader will clarify his intentions when he speaks.
I understand Senators' legitimate reasons for raising issues. Yesterday I outlined our business for before Easter. We have established dates for debates on Greencore; the Culliton report, as has been requested. We hope to have that debate on 8 and 9 April. The Electoral Bill, Committee Stage, and the Social Welfare Bill and possibly the amendment to the Maastricht Protocol will be taken on 2 and 3 April. Members should understand that unless we start sitting four or five days a week — that is up to the House to decide and I have no problem with it — we have to keep some order in the House as to what we are doing. We are making progress on many of the issues that have been raised.
In relation to today's Order of Business, the Minister, Deputy John Browne will be here today to take the debate on item No. 2. Senators who were here last week will be aware that the Minister, Deputy Joe Walsh, was here to take the extended debate on that subject, and will reply to the debate today. As to how we will take the debate, the Whips may meet and agree on that. I have no problem as to whether those who spoke last week should be let in again. If that is the wish of the party Whips I am sure we can accommodate them.
On the reform of the House, I hope that after the next Committee on Procedure and Privileges meeting which will probably be held in the next week or so, I will be back to report on that matter to the House on behalf of all the parties. In answer to Senator Costello's comment we did not conclude the statements on the reform of the Seanad. It was decided to wait until all the parties have had a chance to review the Committee on Procedure and Privileges reform proposals. All parties have done so and I am hopeful that next week I will be able to report to the House progress in that regard. Then we will conclude the statements on reform of the Seanad.
Senator Ryan and others mentioned the Culliton report. I certainly will take up with the Department of Industry and Commerce when I go back to the office the matter of reports being sent to each Senator. Various issues have been raised each day, such as the broadcasting debate, which will take place after Easter, and the air transport debate. A debate on the whole issue of transport would be most appropriate at present, considering the changes in EC laws will take place in 1992 as regards transport in and out of this country. I certainly would welcome a debate on air transport and that can be arranged after Easter.
May I take it that the Leader will clarify the format of the statements on United Meat Packers before the debate commences?
Yes, it will be clarified before the debate starts.
Order of Business agreed to.