Today's Order of Business will be items Nos. 1 and 2, to be taken together for debating purposes, with 30 minutes allocated to each speaker. We will sit until 5 p.m. today without a sos.
Order of Business.
In view of the grave difficulties now being experienced by all, but particularly the industrial and commercial sectors — and I would single out small businesses — by the ongoing An Post dispute, could the Leader of the House report to us the progress being made by the Government in bringing both sides together to resolve this issue?
The Senator knows the regulations. That matter is not appropriate——
It is very appropriate.
——to the Order of Business. Matters can be raised on the Adjournment by way of the two minutes statements on matters of concern to Senators.
In view of the national and international importance of this matter perhaps the Leader could make a statement to the House at some stage today about progress in this area, which is of vital interest to all. What progress is being made with the Broadcasting Bill, which, I understand, is to be published shortly? Could we have an indication whether it could be introduced into this House and at what stage the proceedings are in relation to its preparation? While welcoming the Adjournment Debate on the Earth Summit in Rio, may I ask the Leader of the House to allow us a full day for debate on this most important issue? So many aspects of life in Ireland pertain to this issue — energy and industrial policy, agricultural policy, our oversees development aid policy, etc — that I feel we should give due deference——
The matter is being taken on the Adjournment. If the Senator wishes she could put down a more substantive motion, which I think would be preferable rather than raising it on the Order of Business.
I welcomed the Matter on the Adjournment, but I am asking the Leader, in view of the importance of this conference and in view of the relevance of this House, that we have a full day's debate if at all possible in the next fortnight. I do not think there is one Member of this House on any side who would disagree with me on that. I think it is essential that we, representing the Irish people, show where we stand on this issue.
From the Independent Benches we would like a very clear ruling as to what it is now appropriate to raise in the Order of Business. Is it appropriate that we make statements on issues on the environment, which we understood were matters which should be raised under Matters of Concern to Senators? Either we operate this system or we do not, but we would like to have an absolutely clear line on it. I would appreciate that.
I would like to indicate from the Independents' point of view that we feel it is inappropriate to put a time limit on the debate this afternoon and tomorrow. We feel that, since this is a constitutional matter, there should not be any guillotine limit on the debate and that every Member should be allowed to participate. For that reason we will be opposing the Order of Business. We cannot go along with the idea of a time limit on speeches.
As has been agreed many times at the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and in this House, the new regulations clearly say that matters which are relevant to today's Order of Business and forthcoming legislation should be, and ought to be raised on the Order of Business, and nothing else.
Thank you for the clarification, Sir, but I share much of the concerns mentioned by Senator O'Toole and in particular I would like to ask the Leader what is the situation in relation to the commitment which was given that topical items would be taken on a Thursday afternoon? I would like to ask specifically what will topical items be? Will the Leader have some sort of "topicometer" by which he will measure them? Will the notion of topical items be simply exclusive to him or, indeed, will the rest of us be allowed to have our tuppence worth in relation to what should or should not be taken on a Thursday afternoon? I feel a great deal of frustration in relation to what is happening and the manner in which subjects, such as the problems in An Post, appear to be excluded from mention even on the Order of Business.
One final point on that matter. Will Senator O'Keeffe's initiative on banking and banking debates qualify under the topical heading and, if so, can we have some estimate, perhaps to the nearest year, when that is likely to happen?
Two weeks ago, when the Leader spoke on the Order of Business in relation to the debate on the Culliton report, he took the view that the demand for a debate on west of Ireland issues could be answered within the context of the Culliton report and that Senators would have the opportunity, when addressing themselves to that debate, to discuss west of Ireland issues. To me, who raised this issue and called for this debate on a number of occasions, that response is completely unsatisfactory. Burying this special issue of the west and submerging it in national issues has been the problem over the years. I want to reiterate my call that a full-scale debate take place in this House specifically on the west of Ireland, economics and regional development, given the massive displays of public opinion in recent months at the meetings which have been convened by the bishops. It is totally unacceptable that that issue should be submerged in the debate on the Culliton report.
On a point of order, in terms of the agreement we have had, we are now being placed in the impossible situation where four major items have been raised here this morning on which we all have views, and it now appears that we have nothing to say on them.
The Senator has already spoken on the Order of Business.
Working on the basis of today's Order of Business——
That is what I am endeavouring to do; I made it very clear — only matters which are relevant to today's Order of Business or forthcoming legislation should be raised.
I would like to confine myself entirely to what I hope may eventually be forthcoming legislation and formally propose the following change in the Order of Business. Item No. 42 states:
That Seanad Éireann deplores the Government's continuing inaction in response to the decision of the European Court of Human Rights (1988) in the case of Norris versus Ireland; and urges the Government to implement without delay the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission on this matter.
I formally move that this matter be taken first because of the Government's inaction and the very confusing series of different responses from Government, including the Minister for Justice, over the past three and a half years. May I point out that this matter was raised in 1977 by Dr. Noel Browne in the Dáil and he was then told by the then Minister for Justice that the Government were reviewing the legislation. It is now 15 years later; I have waited for three and a half years from a judgment in my favour in the European Court which is still being treated with contempt.
I have no problem seconding the amendment to the Order of Business but I would like to add another item to the Order of Business, that is, that Motion No. 2, which relates to the viability plan for An Post, be taken second on the Order of Business. I believe this is the issue of the day, considering that 2,800 staff in the Dublin area have not been paid their salaries, that talks have broken down at the Industrial Relations Commission and that this morning the Minister for Labour, Deputy Cowen, categorically stated that he will not intervene. That is a scandalous statement from the Minister — he is washing his hands of probably the most important industrial dispute this year. I would ask that we have the opportunity to take this as the second item on the Order of Business and that we have the opportunity of discussing it in this House as a matter of prime importance.
A Cathaoirligh, with respect, at this stage I am even more confused about what is and what is not permitted on the Order of Business. You laid down the general principle, but we have just had a reference to a matter which does not belong to the Order of Business or proposed legislation which you allowed to proceed. We either observe it or we do not observe it, and I would submit that with great respect.
On the proposed Order of Business, I owe an apology to the Leader and to other Senators with whom I was talking last week. At that stage I did agree to a half hour time limit, but in coming to sketch out my own contribution to this vitally important debate I came to agree with my colleague, Senator Ryan, that it is impossible to ask us to observe a time limit on this, given the overwhelming importance of the matter. We have been told that it is the most important decision which the Irish people will have to make since Independence. If that is so, some of the speeches we will make will be, from our point of view, the most important things we have set on record in this House, and I do not think half an hour is suitable. When we debated the Single European Act in the summer of 1987, there was no time limit on that occasion and the SEA was a far less important measure than the proposed Union.
Like my colleagues on the Independent benches, I have endeavoured to observe not just the letter but the spirit of the new arrangements this House has agreed for doing business, and I would hope that those who used to frequently accuse us of disrupting the Order of Business will notice where the disruption is coming from now.
Is that remark in order?
Senator Ryan is in possession.
I sympathise with my colleagues on the backbench, but if they had not abused the Order of Business over the last two or three years——
You are not assisting the Chair; you are out of order, Senator McMahon, will you resume your seat? Senator B. Ryan, without interruption.
We have listened to a lot of waffle here morning after morning for the past two years. They are the cause of these new rules being introduced.
I think my point is proven.
On the question of both the time limit on speeches and the apparent necessity to curtail the entire debate at 4 o'clock tomorrow afternoon, both of which I object to, can somebody explain to me in simple English why? Do not tell me it is because the referendum is fixed for 18 June; that is not an insuperable obstacle. Is it that there is something they do not want us to know about? Is it that there is something they do not want the people to know about?
The Senator is making a speech. You will have half an hour to make your case.
I am talking about the proposal for the Order of Business; I am not talking about the issues. I have not mentioned them. I want to know why we are being restricted in this debate on an issue which the Government and the Taoiseach will tell us is perhaps the most important to come before the Houses of the Oireachtas. I cannot ask them during the debate why I only have half an hour. That would be out of order.
I accept your point.
They have silenced RTE, bought off the newspapers and now they are proposing to silence the Oireachtas as well.
You are moving away from the issue. You were doing well up to now, would you please ask the Leader a question on the Order of Business?
I want to ask him why they silenced RTE, bought off the newspapers and silenced the Oireachtas on this most important issue. What are they afraid of? Why can we not have the discussion on this issue that we had on the Environmental Protection Agency Bill, on the Single European Act and on a host of other legislation? Why do we have to suppress debate? The Maastricht Treaty is going to go through both Houses of the Oireachtas without any Minister ever having to go through it line by line and be asked what each section means, what we would do with even the most minuscule peripheral piece of legislation. I do not know why our Oireachtas has to be treated like that. I think the Leader has to do more than simply say "I propose". We in this House, believe in rational debate and to have rational debate we need to know the reasons and we are not getting any reasons. Therefore I suggest that he has something to hide or the Government are afraid of something, or else they just do not care any more.
On a final point of order, I would also——
This is your third time on the floor, Senator.
Yes it is and it is in the interest of getting on with the Business of the House. I want to make one point. There is no objection to a speech on the Order of Business providing it is relevant to the Order of Business. I think somebody should talk to the different groups about how this House is meant to operate because there is a lack of knowledge.
It is obvious that there are a number of people in this House who will never respond to any agreement whatsoever. I would ask — and I am not implying that you are not capable of chairing the proceedings of this House——
(Interruptions.)
Like any chairman if I got assistance and co-operation from all sides of the House it would be a very simple task.
Members on this side of the House have sat patiently while these speeches were made on the Order of Business.
In fairness, I have to ask the Senator to put a question to the Leader of the House on the Order of Business for today or on forthcoming legislation, as agreed in the programme for the reform of the Seanad.
May I be so bold as to say to you, Sir, please insist that the Members on the other side obey whatever regulations and agreement we have reached?
I would like to ask the Leader when we are likely to see the Milk (Regulation of Supply) (No. 2) Bill back in the House? We had expected it by this stage. I also support the amendment proposed by Senator Norris to include Item No. 42.
I sympathise with my colleagues in restraining themselves on the Order of Business. However, I would remind them that if it had not been for their behaviour over the last two or three years I do not think we would have had a new set of rules today.
I would ask the Senator not to invite interruptions.
We should give the new rules an opportunity, at least six months, and see how it works out — if we are still here.
May I ask the Leader what is the intention in this debate? Is it intended to complete the debate by tomorrow evening? My sympathy lies with the Members behind me when it comes to restricting the debate. We are being told that we are now making one of the greatest decisions since the founding of the State but it seems to me that we are being pushed into a corner. With due respect to my colleagues on the other side of the House, they spent the last year and a half sorting out differences at Government and at party level and now we have a referendum coming up on 18 June and it appears the Government want these two Bills passed tomorrow evening. I think that is being undemocratic and is rushing matters.
I do not think a restriction of 30 minutes per speaker should be imposed. My contribution will be less than 30 minutes, but I do not like other Members being restricted. I would ask the Leader to have a rethink on this and, if necessary, to have a further meeting on Monday or Tuesday next week if there is a great rush on it — or let us wait until Wednesday. We would not be in this position if the Government had not taken over this House on Wednesday of this week. I know we had that argument last week and obviously it has been sorted out; I do not know how, but it has been. I plead with the Leader to give every Member the opportunity to say what they want to say because the country at large do not know what Maastricht is about as of yet. I have met several people who told me they are not going to vote or they will vote "no" simply because they are not being told what Maastricht stands for.
You are moving on to the debate, Senator.
The first place to start is in the Houses of the Oireachtas and I plead with the Leader to give a further day, if necessary, to this debate.
I think there has to be some clarification of matters mentioned. At least leaders of groups should be in a position to raise certain items, but there should not be repetition.
Perhaps the Leader would extend an invitation to Senator O'Toole to attend future meetings of the Whips because of his four interventions to date.
I want to express my appreciation for the way the Leader of the House has facilitated me in the past. I want to refer to Item No. 2 on the supplementary Order Paper. While Maastricht is very urgent and there is need to get the Bill passed as quickly as possible, we could wait a few more days to finalise the discussion on it but the dispute in An Post has a greater urgency. There are 1,200 or 1,500 people not getting their wages.
And there are many people getting no post.
Exactly. Business people all over the country have had to suspend conferences; we had to suspend a conference because of the postal dispute. Everywhere people are affected and businesses are suffering. While this dispute continues couriers are driving around the city and people are in a panic trying to send messages here, there and everywhere.
You are making a speech, Senator.
I am sorry about that, but I feel strongly about this. The House could facilitate Deputies by taking item No. 2 to-day, because Maastricht will be dealt with and I think we know by now what the outcome of Maastricht will be.
I want to compliment Senator Norris on his sartorial elegance, especially with his new Trinity dicky bow. Perhaps the Leader could clarify why a gentleman of such fastidiousness is wearing evening dress in the morning time?
(Interruptions.)
Having listened very patiently and quietly to the deliberations so far, I would like you to explain how you could have allowed a number of Senators to discuss An Post but when Senator Doyle raised the issue, she was cut off immediately?
While we are talking about Maastricht, and the great Europeans we are——
A question on the Order of Business please, Senator, not a speech.
I put it to the Leader that we send a vote of congratulation to Linda Martin and Johnny Logan on winning the Eurovision Song Contest. It was a terrific European achievement.
On the structure of debate for the next two days, in fairness Senator Murphy kindly gave an outline of what happened at the Whips meeting last week. It was decided that we would have the debate over two days and there was agreement that there would be 30 minute contributions. I believe, and I have seen it in the House, that that lends itself to a better debate. It gives all Members an opportunity over the next two days to contribute. It is hoped that we would take Second Stage up to about 12 noon tomorrow and that we would take Committee Stage until 4 p.m.
Several Members raised topical items and that mentioned by Senator Doyle today — the Earth Summit, the banks, and so forth, would be ideal. That would be agreed by the Whips over the next six to eight weeks and we could get to discuss it on a Thursday afternoon within the next week or two. I will communicate with Senator Neville and tell him when the Milk Marketing Bill will be taken.
On the attire of Senator Norris, he sent me to look at my Standing Orders in regard to a visit by An Taoiseach and I thought that was the reason he was dressed in such a way this morning.
On a point of order——
There is no point of order——
With regard to the west of Ireland and the fact that it is not given prominence in the Culliton report, will the Leader agree to a debate on that issue?
Yes.
Senator Norris has moved an amendment to the Order of Business: "That item No. 15, motion 42, be inserted before item No. 1." Is the amendment being pressed?
Yes.
Amendment put.
The Seanad devided: Tá, 16; Níl, 31.
Tá
|
Cosgrave, Liam.Costello, Joe.Doyle, Avril.Harte, John.Jackman, Mary.McDonald, Charlie.McMahon, Larry.Murphy, John A. |
Neville, Daniel.Norris, David.Ó Foighil, Pól.Raftery, Tom.Ross, Shane P.N.Ryan, Brendan.Staunton, Myles.Upton, Pat. |
Níl
|
Bennett, Olga.Bohan, Eddie.Byrne, Hugh.Byrne, Sean.Cassidy, Donie.Conroy, Richard.Dardis, John.Doherty, Sean.Farrell, Willie.Finneran, Michael.Fitzgerald, Tom.Foley, Denis.Hanafin, Des.Haughey, Seán F.Honan, Tras. |
Hussey, Thomas.Keogh, Helen.Kiely, Dan.Kiely, Rory.Lanigan, Michael.Lydon, Don.McCarthy, Seán.McGowan, Paddy.McKenna, Tony.Mullooly, Brian.O'Brien, Francis.Ó Cuív, Éamon.O'Keeffe, Batt.Ormonde, Donal.Ryan, Eoin David.Wright, G.V. |
Tellers: Tá, Senators Norris and B. Ryan; Níl, Senators E. Ryan and Fitzgerald.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 2: Senator Costello has moved an amendment to the Order of Business: "That item No. 15, motion 2, be inserted before item No. 1." However, the amendment was not formally seconded in debate and consequently falls.
Question, "That the Order of Business be agreed to", put and declared carried.