Today's Order of Business is No. 2, Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) (No. 2) Bill, 2000 – Order for Second Stage and Second Stage, with the contributions of spokespersons not to exceed 15 minutes and all other Senators ten minutes; No. 3, Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (Amendment) Bill, 1999 – Second Stage, with the contributions of spokespersons not to exceed 12 minutes and all others Senators ten minutes; No. 4, Aviation Regulation Bill, 2000 – Committee and Remaining Stages; and No. 23, motion 22, to be taken from 6 p.m. until 8 p.m. Business will resume thereafter if not previously concluded. Business will be interrupted from 1.15 p.m. until 2 p.m.
Order of Business.
I propose an amendment to the Order of Business that No. 23, motion 23, be the first item taken today. If the Leader agrees to provide time next week or on a specific date in the foreseeable future to take this motion, I will not press the amendment. It is a short motion which covers some of the most fundamental issues facing Irish politics. They are issues which we, as a House, should debate in depth. I do not want the Leader to say that last week there was a Private Members' motion. That motion was on a Bill from the Labour Party on a specific issue. The Government came back with an omnibus amendment and speakers were allowed eight minutes. I did not bother going in as there is no way one could even begin to cover the issues in eight minutes and many other people did not go in for that reason.
That motion was agreed by all party leaders a week ago and it is now in the names of the leader of the Labour group and the spokesperson for the Independent group – I see Senator Ross, who does not answer to a leader, coming in—
Not since Senator Manning.
As I well know. This motion is in no way threatening. These are issues which we have a duty to discuss. If the Leader gives a clear indication that this non-threatening motion, to which I am certain many Members on his side would like to contribute, will be taken next week, I will not press the amendment to the Order of Business.
I second the amendment to the Order of Business put forward by Senator Manning. I would like the Leader of the House to put his name to this motion and to see it being taken. It is not, however, my intention to press it to a vote today if the Leader gives a commitment to deal with this next week or on a given date. It is crucially important for Members on all sides of the House to say what they have to say on the record and to clarify the record in many ways. Many Members are uncomfortable with the present situation. I believe that Members, who are elected public representatives, should deal with this in an all-party manner. I ask the Leader to give an absolute commitment that this will be addressed next week or on an agreed date. That would at least bring us to the point where we could show the public that there is concern across the House, and not on any one side of the House, and that the high moral ground is not something that goes from one side to the other at any particular time.
The motion referred to by Senator O'Toole is also in my name on behalf of the Labour group. I also urge the Leader to accept it to allow a debate today or tomorrow or next week. We have raised this every day in recent weeks and the Leader has fobbed us off each time, despite the fact that we agreed a motion following his direction that we should come together and do so. It is time we had this wide-ranging debate on standards in public life. I urge the Leader to support such a debate and to specify a date for it.
I seek a debate on waste management. A number of Members on both sides of the House have sought such a debate for several weeks. It is a major issue which is being addressed by every local authority but it also has quite major national implications in terms of the approach to incineration and the recent information on cancer-causing dioxins, landfills and charges. In addition, there is the question of the standard and content of each local plan. It is time for a debate on this issue so that we can tease out the implications for the national waste management policy.
I support Senator O'Toole's request for a debate on waste management, which has been sought by other Members since early in the last session. Senator Coogan, myself and others have asked for such a debate for a number of months. We are well into this session and it has not taken place. In the meantime there is guerrilla warfare throughout the country between groups against incineration, super dumps—
These points can be made during the debate which you seek.
The key point is there is a total absence of national guidance and leadership and this House has the capacity to provide a coherent debate on this issue. I predict that ten years from now a tribunal will be set up by the next generation to establish what the politicians were doing to halt the destruction of our environment in the early years of the millennium. I do not want that to be said of the current generation of Members. I ask the Leader to arrange a debate sooner rather than later as a matter of urgency.
I find it disturbing that following general agreement between leaders of the various groups on an all-party motion my leader and others are saying today that a motion has been tabled without the consent of the other side of the House. The Leader agreed this motion and he said that there would not be a time limit for speakers. They could speak for as long as they liked and that is on the record.
Eight minutes.
He said that three weeks ago. We want an all-party motion to debate lobbying and what is going on in public life. I asked for and received agreement from the Leader on that. It is most unfair and does not give a good impression of the other side of the House. Government Members feel the same way. Why can we not have an agreed all-party motion and general agreement on when the debate should take place? I do not say we should have a debate today but I understood there was agreement between all the leaders of the various groups on this and that is the way it should be. It is most unfair to all Members.
Senator, you have made your point.
I ask the Leader to arrange an early debate on the OECD report published yesterday, which has taken to task many economists, newspaper reporters and the media in this country for their pariah-like discussions on the economy. The OECD has suggested that the economy is booming and will continue to boom. We should debate its report.
There will be a debate tomorrow.
All day tomorrow.
Does the Senator not talk to his Leader?
The Senator is very welcome to the House.
Even I knew a debate was ordered for tomorrow.
Senator Lanigan on the Order of Business, without interruption.
There was a small piece on the report on the front page of today's Irish Independent. It is time that good news is given at least the same amount of publicity as the bad news.
We must congratulate the English credit card companies who will be taking on the cartel of credit card companies here. It is about time. The credit card companies, and the major banks who run them, have been ripping off the small business—
We cannot debate that matter on the Order of Business. It is not in order.
Given that these companies will be entering the market and competing, I ask the Leader to arrange an early debate on the cost of credit charged by credit card companies and to see if any redress can be given to the huge number of people who have been taken asunder by the interest they charge.
I join with Senator Manning and others who have called for a debate on ethics in politics and on public lobbyists, etc. I do not see why people feel so threatened by such debate. The issue will not go away and the sooner we debate it the better. Within the next few weeks we will be leaving for the summer recess. I hope we will not seek a similar debate when we return.
On the question of waste management, who is advising the Minister on thermal treatment? It appears that he is getting only one side of the argument. Senator Quill and Senator Coogan have requested that he attend the House to hear a balanced debate on the matter. Local authorities are floundering on how best to approach it. Surely as Minister he should give direction.
I cannot recall the number of times we have requested that the Mental Health Bill be introduced and debated. I have received many letters in the past weeks detailing the deplorable conditions in some of the psychiatric hospitals. The sooner we deal with the Bill the better.
I accept your ruling, Sir, with regard to the matter on the Adjournment. Will the Leader ask the Minster for Education and Science to attend the House to outline the Government's commitment to education in the national development plan? Investment in education has played a very important part in the growth of the economy. A debate on the matter would be worthwhile.
I support the proposed amendment to the Order of Business regarding the funding of our democracy and the other related matters. I invite the Leader to make the motion unanimous and to allocate more than the eight minutes allocated on the motion last week dealing with lobbyists. This matter should be addressed in an all-party manner.
As the Government's representative in the House, will the Leader advise what the Government has in mind to ensure the retention of what remains of the rural post office network, which sadly is under threat again? The network should be guaranteed because it is part of the bedrock of rural life. Post offices are essential, but it appears that more of them may go. I ask the Leader to outline what the Government intends to do to aid their retention.
I support the call for a debate on waste management. My view is that landfill sites are no longer an option for dealing with waste. There is much misinformation about waste management and I would welcome a debate at an early stage on this matter.
I support Senator Coghlan's request for a debate on rural post offices. However, in terms of their continued existence, it would be marvellous if local people supported them. This is not happening in many places and that is why they are closing.
We will not have a debate on rural post offices on the Order of Business.
I accept the Cathaoirleach's ruling. However, I support the call for a debate on this matter. Such a discussion would educate the public, although I do not suggest Members are not here to be educated. Many people cry when post offices are closed but if they made a more con certed effort to use and support them, they would not close in the first place.
I support the proposal regarding No. 23, motion 23. I also support the call by Senator Costello, Senator Quill and members of the major party in the House for a debate on incineration. I have asked for such a debate five times and the Leader assured me on each occasion that he would arrange it. This issue is critical because decisions must be made soon on whether we opt for incineration. We must know whether it is secure and safe or if it would endanger lives. The Minister's view has been one sided. We want to ensure a balanced debate takes place so we can inform local authority members who must soon make decisions in this area. However, they will avoid the issue because they do not know enough about it and they do not want to take any chances. The House is the proper forum for this debate.
Mr. Ryan
If the Leader cannot clarify the position, I wish to move an amendment to the Order of Business to the effect that only Committee Stage of the Aviation Regulation Bill, 2000, be taken today. The Minister made it clear in her characteristically blunt fashion that she felt taking all Stages at once was ridiculous. She has already committed herself to discussing Report Stage amendments with members of the Opposition. I am sorry the Leader did not contact her since and find this out. We will not be in a position to deal with Report and Final Stages today. To concentrate the Leader's mind, I wish to move an amendment to the Order of Business to the effect that only Committee Stage be taken today.
I enthusiastically support the calls of my colleagues who raised the issue of waste. People should read the most recent report of the EPA to understand what is happening to our rivers. We will be buried in a mountain of waste within a short time. There is a need for a strategy and leadership. Every element from minimisation of the generation of waste to how it is dealt with afterwards must be involved, but none of that is happening at present. It is an extremely important issue. Apart from our quality of life, our tourism industry will collapse and will be buried in a mountain of waste within five years.
I share the concerns of my colleagues about rural post offices. However, we should not forget that rural banks are also facing closure. People say to me that Internet banking will replace it, but I still do not know how to deposit money through the Internet.
I have nothing to deposit.
Mr. Ryan
There are many ways of giving money and moving money around, but I cannot deposit money via the Internet. I ask the Leader to arrange a debate on the ideology of competition which has taken over this country and which is at the root of an enormous number of developments that are threatening the fabric of society.
I share the concerns expressed by many of my colleagues about rural post offices. I ask the Leader, in responding to the calls for a debate on this matter, to note that there is a simple solution to the problem. In England, banks are closing in rural areas, but post offices still exist there. If the banks and post offices came together, as happened in England, and provided a banking service through the rural post office network, everybody would be satisfied as the rural post offices would be retained and people in rural communities would have a service. I am sure others saw the excellent RTE series during the week on the closure of services in rural parts of the country. This is a problem in my county. The Minister is anxious to encourage two banking groups which are already involved in negotiations with An Post. The Leader should encourage the Minister to knock heads together in the banks and post offices.
As regards comments I made last week about the emigrant issue and on which the Leas-Chathaoirleach indulged me, the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment has announced that the Government, in recognising the severe financial implications of the currency difference between the Irish punt and sterling, has agreed to make up the £250,000 lost to emigrant groups in the UK while the current sterling/ punt ratio remains. I acknowledge and welcome the Minister's gesture in that regard.
I ask the Leader to ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to come into the House for a debate on the control of drugs. A recent report shows that 12 or 13 criminal gangs control the drugs scene. It is important to have an urgent debate on the widespread use of drugs throughout the country. Drugs are not only used and abused in cities but in small rural villages and towns. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform should come into the House as a matter of urgency to explain the steps he is taking to get rid of the 12 or 13 criminal gangs involved in drugs.
On a point of order, Senator Ryan needs someone to second his amendment. I second the amendment.
Senators Manning, O'Toole, Costello, Dino Cregan, Jackman, Coghlan and Coogan called for more time to debate ethics in politics and the funding of political parties and politicians. After the Order of Business yesterday, Senator Manning, Senator O'Toole and I discussed this matter and we arranged the wording of a motion. Last night I received the motion and I have no difficulty putting my name to it so it is an all-party motion.
Good.
I endeavoured before this was done yesterday to ensure it would be agreed. Something must have happened along the way but the bona fides of this side of the House were not in question. One cannot have a debate on the same issue twice in the one week. It has not happened here and it will not happen under my leadership. We had a debate on this issue last week. I noted the Senators who spoke on it and those who requested it on the Order of Business but did not speak on it. I know some Members could not speak because of time constraints and commitments. We will see if we can allocate time to it as early as possible over the coming weeks.
Senators Costello, Jackman, Quill, Glynn, Coogan and Ryan called for a debate on waste management. I hope to have this debate within the next two weeks. As we all know, local authority members have visited countries which suffered from this problem years ago to see how their local authorities successfully dealt with it. I can only speak for the midland region of Longford, Westmeath, Laois, Offaly and north Tipperary which is at an advanced stage in making a decision on this issue. It is timely that we should discuss it here within the next two weeks.
Senator Lanigan called for a debate on the OECD report. I have no difficulty leaving time for such a debate. I welcome parts of the report which are in favour of what is happening in Ireland and the success of the policies which politicians in general but the Government in particular have been behind.
An historic decision was made in Northern Ireland last Saturday but the banner headlines in the Sunday newspapers made one wonder whether the journalists employed by those newspapers actually live on this island because they appear to have missed what happened. These people are trying to set an agenda, but I have news for them – the Government will ensure that this country continues to enjoy economic success during the next two years.
Senator Lanigan requested a debate on credit card charges and I will make time available for that. Senator Chambers requested that the Minister for Education and Science come before the House to discuss the investment in education provided for in the national development plan. I have no difficulty in arranging a debate on that matter.
Senators Coghlan, Mooney, Glynn and Ryan referred to rural post offices. This issue has been discussed on many occasions. As long as this Government is in power, those who operate rural post offices have nothing to fear. However, people living in rural areas should do more to avail of the services on offer at these post offices. They should also avail of the range of services on offer to them in the towns and villages in their areas rather than driving 50 or 60 miles to a city to buy produce. These people probably do not save any money by shopping in the city, particularly when account is taken of the transport costs they incur. I agree with the Senators' call that support be given to rural post offices.
Senator Ryan moved an amendment in respect of the Aviation Regulation Bill. We will review progress on that matter later in the day.
Mr. Ryan
Will the Leader discuss it with the Minister?
I am responsible for arranging the Order of Business for the House, not the Minister or anyone else.
Mr. Ryan
I will make a point of informing her of that fact. She will be glad to hear it.
In the newspaper report on what Members said in Leinster House on the Wednesday before last, it was stated that Senator Ryan was previously a member of Fianna Fáil and two other parties.
Surely being a member of Fianna Fáil is nothing of which to be ashamed.
Senator Mooney referred to the issue of emigrants. Like the Senator, I welcome the Tánaiste's announcement that the Government has agreed to make up the £250,000 lost to emigrant groups in the UK as a result of the current difference in value between sterling and the Irish punt.
Senator Burke requested that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform come before the House to debate the drugs issue. I will make time available for such a debate.
There are two amendments to the Order of Business and I will take them in the order in which they were moved. Senator Manning moved amendment No. 1 to the Order of Business, "That No. 23, motion 23, be inserted before No. 2." Is the amendment being pressed?
If the Leader is stating in clear, unequivocal English, that he accepts the principle behind the motion and will agree to take it within the next two weeks, I will not press the amendment. However, I would like him to provide a definitive answer.
Not only will I be arranging for the motion to be taken, I will be putting my name to it. I understood that I would be doing this yesterday before the motion was put down.
That was not the case. The Leader should not try to rewrite history.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Senator Ryan moved amendment No. 2 to the Order of Business, "That Fourth and Fifth Stages of the Aviation Regulation Bill, 2000, be deleted." Is the amendment being pressed?
Mr. Ryan
I believe I can rely on the Minister to resolve this issue and I will, therefore, withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Order of Business agreed to.