The Order of Business is No. 1, motion re referral of Customs and Excise (Mutual Assistance) Act, 2001 to the Joint Committee on Finance and Public Service, to be taken without debate; No. 2, Carer's Leave Bill, 2000 – Second Stage, with the contributions of spokespersons not to exceed 15 minutes and of all other Senators not to exceed ten minutes; No. 3, Mental Health Bill, 1999 – Report and Final Stages, not to be taken before 3 p.m.
Order of Business.
I am slightly confused on No. 1. Are all four or five sections to be referred to committee or is it just the last one? If it is only the last then it would not be acceptable to us. This is major European legislation and in the current climate we would be remiss if we did not get an explanation as to what we are doing and referring to the committee. Will the Leader defer No. 1 until tomorrow so that he can advise the House what is involved and what we are being asked to do? One of the complaints which surfaced recently is that a great deal of complicated European legislation is going through without proper explanation.
Will the Leader explain to us why the Report Stage of the Electoral Bill was so suddenly dropped? The history of this Bill in this House has not been satisfactory. On Committee Stage a large number of substantial amendments, which were not part of the Bill on Second Stage, were introduced and they never actually got Second Stage debate. It now looks as if there will be further substantial changes on Report Stage. The Bill is changing in substance as we go along and I would like to be assured by the Leader that the Opposition groups will receive the changes in adequate time before Report Stage.
Recent changes in Standing Orders allow the Seanad to invite an Attorney General, who is not a Member of the House, to address the House on a matter of current importance. Will the Leader invite the Attorney General to discuss the remarks he made yesterday at the Institute of European Affairs? He raised some very serious questions and made some constructive comments and it would be worthwhile if we could hear his views. It might also help to take out of disarray the current shambles that is Government policy on Europe where we have Ministers going in different directions.
It now appears that some of the more euro-sceptic Ministers, such as the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, Deputy de Valera, do not even bother turning up to meetings of the Council where they could make their difficulties and reservations known and could influence policy in the interests of the people. We discovered today that the Minister, Deputy de Valera, misses something like 80% of the meetings of the Council and simply sends along a civil servant. We would like to see full discussion on Government policy on the EU. At the moment, the Government is pointing in about five different directions.
I asked the Leader, four weeks ago, when the reports of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Attorney General on the Arms Trial affair would be published. He told me then that it would be in two weeks. Will he tell me today when those reports will be published?
About four or five months ago, shortly after Commissioner Solbes had a go at Irish budgetary policy, I raised with the Leader the need for Members of this House to meet with him. The Leader failed to arrange a meeting with Commissioner Solbes at that time. I followed up on a regular basis and he could not find time to meet me.
As a member of the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service, I sought a meeting with Commissioner Solbes. He was too busy during the last two or three months to meet the committee, but tentatively agreed to do so during his visit to Ireland this week. He has since refused to meet the elected committee of the Oireachtas which deals with these issues.
At a time when we are engaged in a debate on Europe, it is appalling that such contempt for public representatives is shown. It will not help the European project, which urgently needs to be defended by those of us who support it. If Mr. Solbes does not engage in discussion with elected politicians, he has little or no chance of convincing those who oppose the Nice treaty.
As part of the current debate on the EU, the Taoiseach and this House should make it clear to Mr. Solbes that he has been invited to Ireland by us, that he works for us and that he cannot avoid meeting us. The issues of importance to the people must be discussed and addressed. His behaviour during the last five or six months has been a disgrace. He will not discuss our objections, our needs and the issues we wish to raise. This country is affected by the asymmetric impact of European budgetary policy. We need flexibility in European policy and we support European policy, but the Commissioner should engage with us and deal with our concerns.
The Senator has made his point.
I was just beginning. Perhaps I went beyond what I should have said, but I believe this needs to be dealt with. Joint committees are the responsibility of both Houses. I ask the Leader of the House to discuss this matter with the Minister for Foreign Affairs.
Last week, Senator Costello raised the matter of two Irish children who are being held in a German prison and he asked that certain measures be taken. I support the Senator's appeal. It is important that the matter should be discussed. Aspects of the case regarding the young people have come to my attention.
This matter was raised on the Adjournment last Thursday.
There is an important civil rights issue at stake, which the Leader might take note of.
I agree with Senator Manning's remarks regarding the first item on the Order of Business. It seems clear that we are being asked to approve terms of five instruments, copies of which were laid before Dáil Éireann on 12 June. Copies of these instruments were not laid before this House, however, so why should we be expected to approve a pig in a poke, something that was not laid before us? This is another example of—
I understand there has been a printing error.
A printing error?
It should read "Seanad Éireann".
Perhaps we will be given clarification.
It should read "Seanad Éireann".
That goes some way to resolving the matter. Many significant matters of decision making and policy are being referred for our adoption, proposals which affect the Customs and Excise (Mutual Assistance) Act, 2001. Such matters should not simply be put on the Order Paper, but explanatory memoranda should be circulated to Members so we can have a proper look at proposals ahead of a debate now or when further proposals are referred to us.
I asked for a debate on the Nice treaty last week. Such a debate should have taken place before the referendum, but it is happening now. Eurosceptics who did not speak before the referendum are now telling us they knew the exact situation. It is important that the Minister for Foreign Affairs should come to the House.
The Labour Party always votes against everything.
The Labour Party campaigned for a "Yes" vote, which is more than Fianna Fáil did. They are speaking from both sides of the mouth on this one.
If the Labour Party had its way we would not be in the EU.
If the Government had undertaken a decent campaign, the treaty referendum would not have been lost. I blame the Government for making no effort whatsoever. Remarks made following the result have indicated quite clearly there is a division in the Government camp in regard to the treaty both in terms of the Progressive Democrats—
The Senator has made the case for a debate on the matter, as he did last week. I am sure the Leader of the House will take cognisance of the points he has made.
The initial debate should take place in this House with our own Ministers present. If they are not attending the Council of Europe, we should know the reason. There is no good in criticising other officials and representatives in the European Union when we are not doing the work ourselves and our Ministers are not even bothered to find out what is going on in regard to their remits.
These points can be made in the debate which the Senator is seeking.
The Leader of the House is prepared to facilitate a debate on the health service. However, yesterday nurses at Naas General Hospital used their lunch break to protest at the extraordinarily bad conditions in which patients are dealt with and the health services that are provided there. It was also brought to my attention yesterday that a 79 year old woman who had pneumonia spent four days on a trolley in the Mater Hospital before she got a bed. That is outrageous. We must have a debate on the health service being provided during the current economic boom.
Will the Leader of the House ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment what action she intends to take regarding petrol prices? Last February the price of a litre of unleaded petrol was approximately 65p while today it is more than 74p. The benchmark price of a tonne of crude oil was approximately $375 in early May while today it is selling for $280, almost $100 per tonne less, yet the price of petrol at the pumps has not changed. There has been a significant reduction of almost 30% in the wholesale price of crude oil but the Minister and the Department are doing nothing about the matter. What bugs me is that if the price of a pint increased by a few pence due to increased wages and other overheads, all hell would break loose with banner headlines and politicians screaming. There has been a 30% reduction in the price of crude oil and nothing is being done about the matter. Will the Leader of the House bring this to the Minister's attention?
I have raised many times the issue of asylum seekers and refugees. I am particularly concerned about the bishops' comments this morning regarding the proposal to fine the carriers of illegal migrants which would push undocumented migrants into the hands of traffickers. The alarm bells are ringing and I hope the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform will come into the House to discuss the plight of refugees and asylum seekers and their requests for work permits in order that they can contribute socially and economically to the life of the country.
I support Senator Manning's call for the Attorney General to attend the House. It is amazing that there has been so much debate following the Nice treaty referendum. That should have happened prior to it being voted on. What is the motivation behind the continual change in Government policy?
I do not understand item No. 1. It just popped up and today is the first time I have seen it. That may be my fault but I guess it is the first time any Member has seen it. It is quite outrageous that a motion as important as this should be passed without debate, particularly as it refers to the issue of money laundering. It is typical of our attitude to matters European, as referred to by the Attorney General last night. If the issue relates to Europe, it must go through on the nod. Nobody understands it and it gets through because it does not need to be discussed. These matters deserve serious discussion in the House and the motion should be deferred. The Minister should come into the House to explain what the issues contained in it mean. I do not know what they are about and we should not be asked to pass such matters on the nod.
Hear, hear.
It is quite outrageous.
I support what Senator O'Toole said about Commissioner Solbes. That is also symbolic of the contempt with which the European Commissioners treat this House of parliamentarians. He does not have time to meet parliamentarians from Ireland, yet he has plenty of time to give a reprimand to the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, and to spend hours briefing the press and other people about it.
I congratulate the Taoiseach for the liberal attitude he has taken to the statements made by the Minister for Finance on the Nice treaty and the fact that he is being allowed to say it is a healthy development, which it undoubtedly was. I also congratulate him for the liberal way he has allowed other Ministers, such as the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, Deputy de Valera, and her cousin, the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Deputy Ó Cuív, to make statements on this issue.
Those points can be made in the debate.
I will want to make that point again. I congratulate the Tánaiste for supporting the Minister for Finance this morning. That is worthy of note. The Government is almost speaking with one voice on this issue for the first time, namely, the voice of Euro scepticism, and that is welcome on this side of the House.
I propose an amendment to the Order of Business – I would like the support of the Leader – that, in light of the tremendous performance of the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, with which I totally agree, we as a body congratulate him and take No. 19, motion 19 on today's Order Paper, "That Seanad Éireann fully supports the decision of the Minister for Finance to stand up to the European Union Commission and the European Union Finance Ministers in their efforts to reprimand the Irish Government for its economic policies."
Will the Senator get a seconder from the Government side?
I am looking for a seconder and for support from over there. It is time we, as a nation and as politicians, stood up against these bullying reprimands from European Commissioners. The attitude of the Minister for Finance was right and has been borne out as such. One of the reasons – I do not know all the reasons – for the "No" vote was the atrocious way the Minister for Fin ance was treated when he was drafting his budget and afterwards and the way Irish democrats were treated by the European Commissioner. The same attitude is now being shown towards Irish people by European leaders throughout Europe and it was also shown the other day at the summit.
The Senator is pre-empting the debate he is seeking.
I am, but I am asking for support from the other side. I would like the Leader to second the motion of congratulations to the Minister for Finance for his healthy attitude to the European Union.
The Senator has made his point.
I second the proposal by Senator Manning that No. 1 be postponed until tomorrow or until it is clarified further. I also support Senator O'Toole's comments about Commissioner Solbes. He should meet the representatives of the committees of the House. This is an important issue.
It was stated recently that we should have a debate on the National Roads Authority and on our national primary and secondary routes. This is an important issue. Little funding is given to our national secondary routes, although there are more national secondary roads than national primary ones. We need an urgent debate on this issue and on toll roads. When does the Leader plan to have a debate on the National Roads Authority and on our national roads?
Another issue which was raised recently was the cost of insurance for young drivers. This is an important issue because young drivers are paying exorbitant fees for car insurance. This is causing great concern among young people throughout the country. I ask the Leader for a debate on this issue in the near future.
I compliment the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Fahey, on the strong stance he is taking with other Ministers at European level in the negotiations on the fisheries agreement.
Hear, hear. I am sorry I left him out.
The Seanad should provide an opportunity for him to outline the progress being made on behalf of the fishing industry and the country. It is a suitable time to renegotiate some of the agreements which will serve the future of our fishing industry and the people living along our seaboard.
I call the Leader of the House to reply.
Would it be out of order for me to second Senator Ross's proposal?
Yes, I understand it would be out of order.
Senators Manning, Costello, Ross and Burke asked about No. 1. That item will go to committee but it will come back to the House for further debate. If the House is of the view that we should allocate time to debate this item, I will give an undertaking now to the leaders and the Whips—
Why can the Leader not postpone it and explain it?
—that this time will be made available.
Senator Manning referred to the Electoral (Amendment) Bill and the changes that are being enacted. The real function of initiating Bills in the House is that amendments can be made and an accommodating Minister, as this Minister is, has taken on board the good suggestions made in the House and will bring them forward as amendments on Report Stage. Those of us who were here last week understand the enormous implications of the amendment in relation to electronic voting in particular.
What the Leader means is that the amendments were not ready for today. This is all bluster. The amendments are not ready.
I look forward to Senator Manning's contribution—
The Leader should tell the truth. The amendments are not ready. That is the reason.
May I intervene to clear up a matter? There was a request from the office responsible for printing the Bills currently before the Dáil and the Seanad. That office could not meet the printing demands for all the proposed Bills in the House.
We do not need bluster from the Leader. We need the truth.
There was a request—
Tell us the facts. The Leader should not patronise us and talk down to us. He did enough of that over Nice.
Senator Manning is whipping up election fever for the Tipperary by-election.
At least I was down there.
He has a big job on hand, and he has a very good candidate. The Cathaoirleach has given the reasons the Bill will now be taken on Thursday.
The Cathaoirleach gave the reasons. The Leader did not.
On the proposal from Senators Jackman and Manning to ask the Attorney General to address the House, that is a matter for the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, as the Senators know well.
On the Government's policy in relation to the European Union, that is very well known—
Is it?
—but if Senators want time to discuss the matter, I will make it available.
Senator Jackman called for a debate on asylum seekers. I will pass on the Senator's views to the Minister.
Senator Burke called for a debate on the national secondary roads and rural and western development. That matter can be taken tomorrow night during Private Members' Business. As I said last week, if a sufficient number of Senators are interested in making their contributions in Fianna Fáil Private Members' time tomorrow night, I will bring a proposal before the House tomorrow morning in that regard.
Senator Burke also called for a debate on motor insurance premiums for young people. As I said last week, I can have time allowed for that also. Senator Chambers called for a debate on the insurance industry. I have no difficulty in making time available for that.
Senator Manning called for an update on the Arms Trial report papers. I will have inquiries made in that regard today and will come back to the House on it tomorrow morning.
Senators O'Toole and Ross strongly condemned Commissioner Solbes for his contempt for the elected representatives of Seanad Éireann and the committee of the House which invited him to come before it. That is not the way to progress and work in harmony. We have always been good Europeans and have always respected the institutions of the European Parliament and everything for which it stands. I will pass on to the Taoiseach the strong views of Senators O'Toole and Ross on that matter.
Senator Costello called again for a debate on the Nice referendum. I have already said that we can ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs to come in for such a debate. The Senator also called for a debate on the health services. I stated last week that we will have time available for such a debate.
Senator Bohan called for the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment to intervene to see what could be done regarding the price of petrol. The Senator made an analogy with other sectors and I will pass on his views to the Minister.
Does the Leader accept my amendment?
Senator Ross moved an amendment to the Order of Business. However, the amendment was not seconded in debate and consequently—
The amendment was seconded.
No.
The amendment was seconded.
I formally seconded the amendment.
The Senator did not second the amendment in debate as he had already spoken. The amendment was not formally seconded in debate and consequently—
On a point of order, a Chathaoirligh – if I am wrong I will accept your ruling – it was my understanding, and I have seen it happen many times, that a Senator who has spoken once is allowed to formally second an amendment.
No, there is no such precedent.
I said I would accept your ruling.
An amendment must be seconded in debate before the Leader replies. Senator Ross's amendment was not seconded in debate and, consequently, it falls.
I accept your ruling, a Chathaoirligh.
A Chathaoirligh, I wish to seek clarification from the Leader which might make life easier. Is he going ahead with No. 1 today rather than, as requested by Opposition groups, postponing it for a day and explaining the matter to us? Will he proceed with the item today, regardless of whether we like it?
I propose to take No. 1 today.
Is the Order of Business agreed to?
There will be calls for a quorum for the rest of the day.
Question put: "That the Order of Business be agreed to."
Tá
|
Bohan, Eddie.Callanan, Peter.Cassidy, Donie.Chambers, Frank.Cox, Margaret.Cregan, JohnDardis, John.Farrell, Willie.Fitzgerald, Liam.Fitzgerald, Tom.Gibbons, Jim. |
Glennon, Jim.Glynn, Camillus.Jackman, Mary.Kiely, Rory.Leonard, Ann.Moylan, Pat.O'Brien, Francis.O'Donovan, Denis.Ó Fearghail, Seán.Ormonde, Ann.Walsh, Jim. |
Níl
|
Burke, Paddy.Costello, Joe.Jackman, Mary.Manning, Maurice. |
O'Toole, Joe.Ridge, Thérèse.Ross, Shane. |
Tellers: Tá, Senators T. Fitzgerald and Gibbons; Níl, Senators Burke and Jackman.
Question declared carried.