The Order of Business is items 1 and 2, item 1 to be taken without debate. All Stages of item 2 will be taken today with the contributions of spokespersons not to exceed 15 minutes and all other Senators not to exceed ten minutes.
Order of Business.
I am afraid we have some difficulty with the proposed Order of Business. Fifteen minutes is not adequate for a Second Stage speech from a spokesperson for any Group and, furthermore, we did not agree to take all Stages of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) (Amendment) Bill, today and we are not happy to do so. It has become a habit to take all Stages of Bills on the same day. This is a practice which the opposite side, and Senator Dardis in particular, rightly resisted in the last Seanad. Only on rare occasions were all Stages of a Bill taken on the same day. We do not agree to all Stages of this Bill being taken today.
Item 1 on the Order of Business has also appeared without notice. It is a long motion and we are being asked to take it without debate. Unless the Leader can tell us on the Order of Business what is actually involved in this motion, because it is not crystal clear what is involved, we will have difficulty with item 1. I am sure, however, that the Leader can explain very simply what is involved.
On the question of the missing Department of Finance files, I am quite sure there is a straightforward explanation as to why the files are missing. However, a serious matter was raised by a journalist this morning of the many Government files which are not being moved to the National Archives in compliance with the 30 year rule. It would be worthwhile to have a debate on the National Archives and on whether or not Government policy, which is very clear, is being implemented in this matter and that files are being moved to the National Archives in accordance with the law.
Finally, will the Leader find out if it is now Government policy to insult civil servants who are working in the Department of Finance? I refer in particular to the abusive remarks made yesterday by the Minister of State at the Department of Education, Deputy O'Dea, when he referred to the misers and troglodytes working in the Department of Finance. Surely it is not Government policy to insult civil servants whose job it is to carry out official Government policy. This is a very serious matter. We all depend on civil servants and accept their integrity. I call on the Leader to ask the Taoiseach to repudiate the remarks of the Minister. If he does not do this, the Minister's remarks will be seen as reflecting the views of civil servants — who have always been above politics — among certain members of the Government.
For the past number of days I have indicated to the Leader that it is my intention, and that of some other groups on this side of the House, to push for the inclusion of item 9, the Shannon River Council Bill, on the Order of Business. I raised this with the Leader and understand he is having some difficulty in getting a clear position from the Government. Integrity of politicians comes into play in this context. All sides of the House supported the approach taken by the previous Government and I expect Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats to support the Bill. Will the Leader indicate the reason for the delay, when the Bill is likely to be taken and if in the intervening period representatives of the Government parties will add their names to the proposers and seconders of the Bill as it seems to be in line with their policy?
Senator Manning raised the issue of taking item 1 on the Order Paper without debate. The idea of taking without debate three pages of text, which have not been explained or discussed and for which no prior notice was given, is beyond belief. It is about such issues that in two years people will inquire as to whether politicians asked any questions regarding it. I do not know what the item means and have great difficulty taking it without debate.
The second paragraph seems to include a restriction on the work of the committees as already debated and passed by the House. It seems committees will be restricted from dealing with information if it is deemed to come under the aegis of the Committee of Public Accounts. The third paragraph seems to smack of suppression of information and censorship. This flies very much in the face of matters discussed and agreed under the Freedom of Information Act.
I make these points by way of indicating my difficulty on this matter. I do not know what we are providing for by agreeing to the first two pages of the order. I have only received the text and, like other Members, have not had an opportunity to examine its context, namely, the order which is being amended, or what the changes imply. I ask the Leader to either completely clarify the matter or allow sufficient debate to ensure we have a clear understanding of it. We are not trying to create a problem or slow the process — I understand if the order needs to be passed. However, the reason it needs to be passed should be explained.
I strongly agree with what has been said by Senators Manning and O'Toole regarding item 1. We should not take it without debate unless the Leader is prepared to give considerable clarification on what is intended by the amendment. While it includes some items which are attractive in the context of annual reports, section 13 includes the bald statement that matters shall not be inquired into if the Minister so requests. Surely the Minister will have to give reasons why an item might be considered confidential or not subject to examination. This issue needs to be examined in considerable detail. I suggest the Leader defer this matter until such time as a suitable explanation regarding its contents and implications is provided.
We cannot accept item 2. We understood that Second Stage and not all Stages of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) (Amendment) Bill was being taken today. It is inappropriate that we should have to raise the issue of all Stages being taken in a single sitting again and again. We have continuously requested that all Stages not be taken together but that Second Stage be taken one day and that further Stages be taken on a subsequent day.
Once again I refer to item 7 regarding the protection of workers and the need for a debate on industrial relations. A GUBU situation has almost been reached, with gardaí, who have been picketing outside the House, planning a day of sickness for Friday.
One hundred and fifty five files have disappeared from the Department of Finance with no apparent explanation. Senator Manning raised a very serious matter regarding the National Archives. A statutory instrument has been breached under the National Archives Act, 1986, which provides that all material should be transferred to the National Archives. This has not been done. I raised the issue on the Adjournment last week as, since the foundation of the State, none of the material relating to reformatory or industrial schools has been transferred to the National Archives. We must examine what is intended by the legislation and how it is being implemented.
I ask the Leader, as a matter of urgency, to approach the appropriate Minister and invite him or her to the House to discuss the protection and defence of Michelle Smith, one of our national treasures. We rejoiced in her victories, shared in her credit and basked in the glory of her achievements. It would be wrong to now run for cover. The nation's head should be put above the parapet. We should ensure that whatever financial resources and professional help she requires to clear her name is provided. To do less would mean we are not worthy of our heroes and heroines.
I object to the Leader's suggestion that we take all Stages of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) (Amendment) Bill today. I remind the Leader that I have had much interest in this Bill. Last weekend I telephoned his office which kindly accommodated me by sending me a fax indicating that Second Stage of the Bill would be taken today. Our party Whip circulated me on Monday to let me know that Second Stage would be taken today. I note that today's Order Paper refers to Second Stage. There is no mention in anything circulated to me as a spokesperson, or to other Members who wish to speak on the Bill, that any Stage other than Second Stage would be taken today. I object to the taking of all Stages today.
I have previously raised the issue of enlargement of the EU. It would be appropriate if we could have a debate on the countries which have recently been accepted or applied for membership. Perhaps we could start with a debate on Poland. I would welcome the arrangement of such a debate by the Leader.
Why is the Committee on European Affairs exempt from the provisions in the order under item 1? Perhaps the Leader will examine this issue.
I am also concerned about the ordering of business regarding the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) (Amendment) Bill. I only had notification of discussion of Second Stage and as a spokesperson in this area I find it extraordinary to be told this morning that all Stages are to be taken today. I thought we had got the message through to the Leader that discussion of all Stages of a Bill on the same day is unacceptable. I am not the only Senator who has raised this issue. To be given such short notice on such important legislation is not acceptable. I hope the Leader will take this on board as it must be resisted.
I support what Senator O'Toole said about the Shannon River Council Bill. May we have a clear indication — my recollection is that I wrote to the Leader about this a number of months ago — on that Bill and the Leader's intention in that regard. It is a fine piece of legislation which was introduced by former Senator Michael O'Kennedy on behalf of the communities of north Tipperary and other communities on the Shannon River. It was acceptable to the Leader then. Is it not acceptable to him now? There is much concurrence surrounding that legislation, so let us get a solid indication from the Leader one way or the other.
Finally, I know the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is obviously extremely busy at present, but it is a matter of grave concern that experts in the field are telling us that the vast majority of those convicted of sexual offences are simply not receiving any rehabilitative therapy in prison and are being released into the community without such treatment. That must be a matter of major concern to any public representative. I want the Leader to bring that to the attention of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and I want to hear his reply.
I support what Senator Manning said regarding departmental files and State archives. I ask the Leader the system, if any, which is in place to ensure the safe retrieval of files where they might be called from offices to ministerial offices to ensure they are returned intact and without sanitisation?
First, I want to express concern about the scale of exemptions proposed in item 1. It is not healthy, when we are trying with the recent introduction of the Freedom of Information Act, 1997, to open up matters to public scrutiny, to be starting to close them down again at such an early stage.
What are the results of the Leader's efforts yesterday, following my request on the Order of Business, to get the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to agree to come in to discuss the Garda pay situation, and in particular the contingency plans which have been put in place for tomorrow's proposed action? There is massive public concern, first, that the issue should be resolved as quickly as possible and, second, at the threat to security which might be posed as a result of tomorrow's intended action.
In response to the contributions of Senator Manning, Senator O'Toole, Senator Connor, Senator Costello and Senator O'Meara regarding item 1, the reason for this is that the committee chairmen of the committees of the Houses were concerned that no committee in the 28th Dáil had the power to examine the accounts of commercial State bodies in the manner in which the Joint Committee on Commercial State-Sponsored Bodies did during the 27th Dáil. That is the reason the Bill is before us this morning. It was before the Dáil and it was taken without debate. I ask the House for its approval on that this morning.
On the other points made by Senator Manning about a debate on the files in the National Archives, I will be able to make time available for this. I agree totally with all his sentiments and those of the other Senators who spoke this morning on the matter.
On Senator Manning's concern about the expressions of Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, regarding the Civil Service, I did not hear what the Deputy said but I assure Senator Manning and the House that the Government has always respected the Civil Service, its marvellous work and its great efforts. Only in the past few days all sides of this House and of the Dáil have been paying glowing tributes to the Civil Service for their great work during the Northern Ireland talks. We have a marvellous Civil Service. We are very proud of it and I know this Government is too, from the Taoiseach down.
On the query of Senator O'Toole and Senator O'Meara about the Shannon River Council Bill, this is a Fianna Fáil Bill. This is not a Bill which has emanated from Senator O'Toole or another Senator.
It is a very good Bill.
It is an excellent Bill.
This is the brainchild of former Senator Brendan Daly, a man who has held eight portfolios in this House, and former Senator Michael O'Kennedy. Let us be straight, honest and fair about it to the constituents it concerns, that this is and always was a Fianna Fáil Bill.
We accept that.
We have invited the Leader to put his name to it for that reason.
My difficulty is that the Minister is in America on Government business. I understood the Bill related to the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources but I realised yesterday it relates to the Department of the Environment and Local Government. The Minister for the Environment and Local Government is in New York. He will be back on Saturday. I will inform the House about it next Wednesday.
We are going ahead with it?
On Senator Costello's call for a debate on industrial relations, I have given my commitment to the House here yesterday.
On Senator Ó Murchú's expressions regarding Ms Michelle Smith, I was disappointed that the media did not cover the part of the Order of Business on Tuesday when this was discussed. We are all extremely proud of Ms Smith. She has brought terrific honour to this country, she won three gold medals at the Olympic Games which no other Irish person has done and we are totally supportive of all her endeavours. I agree with Senator Ó Murchú's call that everything should be done to clear her name and that financial resources to clear her name should be made available, if required, if that turns out to be the right thing to do.
On Senator Lydon's call for a debate on the enlargement of the European Union, we can have this debate after the referendum. There is no time between now and the referendum, as far as I can see, unless we want to sit an extra day, on a Monday or Tuesday morning.
Senator Gallagher asked me yesterday morning to pass on the request that, if possible, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform come into the House to state his views on the Garda dispute, and I did so. As the House will be aware, the Minister is giving every minute of his time to trying to solve this dispute. I have every confidence that he will in time. I have made time available if the Minister wants to come in here and debate the matter. He told me he was extremely busy and every minute of his time was being taken up with it. He was not in any way refusing to come here. Today, as is evident, everything will be done to bring this dispute to a conclusion as soon as possible.
With regard to the Bill, many Senators have expressed the wish to take Second Stage only. If the House wants an adjournment for an hour after Second Stage, I can facilitate it. What is on the Order Paper is only an indication of what might happen. The Order of Business is ordered here on the floor of the House each day. This is a short Bill containing only three sections. Much of the content of the Bill was discussed in the House during the debate on another Bill which was closely related to it. Looking at this short Bill, I saw that, with the exception of section 2, it is very like a Bill which was before the House recently. That is why I suggested to the House to take all Stages today. It is not my intention to take all Stages of Bills on the same day in the House. A Defence Bill will be coming before the House next Friday which must be passed by the following Monday. Members must understand that is a Government decision. I know the former Leader, Senator Manning, understands the position in which I find myself from time to time. I propose a sos for an hour between Second and Committee Stages if the House so wishes.
The question is: "That the Order of Business be agreed to."
Question put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 18; Níl, 10.
Tá
- Bohan, Eddie.
- Bonner, Enda.
- Callanan, Peter.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Chambers, Frank.
- Cox, Margaret.
- Dardis, John.
- Farrell, Willie.
- Fitzgerald, Tom.
- Gibbons, Jim.
- Glynn, Camillus.
- Lanigan, Mick.
- Lydon, Don.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Moylan, Pat.
- O'Brien, Francis.
- Ó Murchú, Labhrás.
- Ormonde, Ann.
Níl
- Caffrey, Ernie.
- Coghlan, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cosgrave, Liam T.
- Costello, Joe.
- Gallagher, Pat.
- Manning, Maurice.
- O'Meara, Kathleen.
- O'Toole, Joe.
Tellers: Tá, Senators T. Fitzgerald and Gibbons; Níl, Senators Coogan and Caffrey.
Question declared carried.