The Order of Business for today is No. 1, Pensions (Amendment) Bill, 2001 – Order for Second Stage and Second Stage, with the contributions of spokespersons not to exceed 20 minutes and those of all other Senators not to exceed ten minutes, and Senators may share time. This is to conclude at 4 p.m.
Order of Business.
I will not propose any formal amendment to the Order of Business but I ask the Leader to consider carefully the possibility of having a debate on events at Sellafield. Over recent years, there have been many assurances to the House from the Minister of State at the Department of Public Enterprise, Deputy Jacob, that he was dealing with this issue, that the British were listening to what he was saying, that every necessary step was being taken and that the special relationship between Prime Minister Blair and the Taoiseach would ensure that what is now going to happen would not happen. Members have listened to the Minister on many occasions in this House assure us that what is now happening would not happen.
Yesterday, the British Minister, Ms Margaret Beckett MP, in one short, arrogant statement dismissed all Irish claims and fears. This is as a matter of minor provincial interest as far as Ms Beckett is concerned. Irish considerations simply do not matter. There should be a one hour debate today so that Members on all sides can record their concerns on what is proposed at Sellafield. The House would be neglecting its duty if it did not take the first opportunity for such a debate. That opportunity arises today.
I wish to make what I believe is a constructive suggestion concerning the proposed amendment to the Constitution on the issue of abortion. What is proposed, if not unique, is certainly highly unusual, that is, the combination of constitutional amendment and legislation. It is something that all parties want to approach in a calm, level and fair minded way. Those who served in the House in the 1980s have no desire to return to the bitterness and recriminations of those days. We recognise that the problems are complex and difficult.
I suggest that, at an early stage, the Minister for Health and Children come to the House to explain to Members the thinking behind what is proposed. As far as I and my party are concerned, we see merit in what is proposed but we also have serious questions – to which there may be answers. We would like to hear the Government answers. I ask the Leader to arrange for such a preliminary debate, and that it be accompanied by a lengthy question and answer session with the Minister.
I support fully Senator Manning's request for a debate on the developments in Sellafield. The way this situation is being dealt with is a sign of extraordinary contempt from the British Government towards Ireland. Apart from the comments we would make, the debate is important because there has been a strong emerging tradition over the past ten years of consensus among all parties on this issue. It is important that these views go on record. A debate at this time would show those who need to see or hear these views that there is a single minded approach to this issue among parliamentarians on this island, north and south. I would like to see a similar debate in Belfast.
I ask the Leader to give time for this debate and would like to hear also from the Minister the strategy and tactics which the Irish Government intends to employ in order to turn the screw internationally on Britain on this issue. The matter is outrageous and goes against the views of all right thinking people at this time. It is completely inappropriate one month after the events in New York. The stronger the views expressed on this issue, the better so that we give the Government the clear, consensus view of Irish parliamentarians. This should be a priority.
I reiterate my comments of yesterday on the need for a co-ordinated approach to the downturn in the economy. Parliamentarians should have an input into this. We do not want to hear whinging in six months time to the effect that parliamentarians had no input into these issues and that social partnership is taking over from democracy and similar complaints. Now is the time for parliamentarians to put forward their views and debate the recent economic changes. As I have suggested before, the ESRI report is a solid platform on which to base such a debate. I will propose an amendment to the Order of Business next week if we cannot find agreement on a time to look at these issues in a way that sees Members' views taken into consideration.
I fully support Senator Manning's call for a full debate on Sellafield and the out rageous announcement that Britain is to go ahead with these developments after six or seven years of scandals involving British Nuclear Fuels at the Thorpe site. In particular in consequence of what has happened in the United States, there are dangers associated with plutonium and uranium getting into the wrong hands as they travel virtually around the world with conventional type cargo in ships. There is a threat to our own coast and the leakage and discharges from Sellafield already are believed by the medical fraternity to have given rise to leukaemia and other cancers. There is a huge issue there to be debated and we have accepted the smug reassurances from the Government. I remember the Minister of State, Deputy Jacob, and other Ministers coming in here and assuring us time and again that everything was in hand and there was no way that this development was going to take place and, if it was, they had such a good relationship with the British Government and the OSPAR countries that the European Union and the European Court would decide in our favour. Once again we are set to challenge this development. We did not challenge it and it is set to take place. We need to have a Government spokesperson come in here and explain our strategy and, if you will pardon the pun, what is the fallout in regard to the current decision.
We had an entire year of crisis in education last year. I ask for a debate on education as we are starting again with mismanagement of the education sector. The initial refusal by the Government to pay part-time teachers and then the complete U-turn on this matter is a bad way to start the new school year. With the rejection of the proposed payment for supervisory duties by the ASTI, we again seem to be heading for a crisis. At this early stage and before the situation deteriorates further it would be appropriate that we have a full-scale debate on education.
Will the Leader allocate time as soon as possible for us to make statements on the Euro changeover? I am extremely concerned that in some quarters price hiking will take place over the next couple of months. While I believe that most businesses will act responsibly, it is very important that we address the matter in this House as a matter of urgency.
Yesterday I raised the need for a debate on special needs education, and I noted in today's paper that there may be another fallout from the Jamie Sinnott case in regard to legal problems. The Minister should come in and explain the position on that issue and what he is doing as regards assessment and treatment for children with special educational needs. I appeal to the Minister to try to resolve the ongoing teacher dispute before it gets out of hand.
I join with my colleagues who have called on the Leader for a debate on the recent developments in Sellafied. With them I roundly condemn what has happened. I urge the Leader to call on the Minister to bring this matter to every forum available to him to exert the maximum possible pressure on the British. I am sure this House would agree that what has happened recently – in view of the background of the last couple of weeks – constitutes a potential act of treachery against a friendly neighbour.
I support the call for a debate on this issue. It is an astonishing decision on the part of the British given the fact that the Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, warned against the exposure to increased risk of terrorism using nuclear weapons. British Nuclear Fuels has lied, falsified reports, been found in breach of security and concealed accidents. How can we possibly trust them? A nuclear scientist from the Oxford group, Professor Barnaby, said it beggared belief. What on earth are they doing? At this juncture it is simply an incredible move.
I strongly support the view of Senator Manning. We are all well aware of the disastrous record at Sellafield and this proposal would seem to be flying in the face of reason. Is this indicative of a major breakdown in the relationship between the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister? As Senator Manning said, Minister Beckett, when announcing—
(Interruptions.)
—I sincerely hope it is not the case. I do not mean to scaremonger, but this is a huge expansion at Sellafield and it is contrary to all—
Senator Coghlan, order please. You must not pre-empt the debate which is being sought. I take it that you are supporting the call for a debate.
Very much so and I want to register a protest against the way the Minister, Margaret Beckett, treated this country as a mere backwater.
Do that in the debate, Senator.
I too believe that the proposed event at Sellafield is particularly worrying. For any British Minister to underpin the argument by suggesting that there is no other alternative, simply because they have expended so much money to date, is absolutely outrageous. It is vital that this House remains united on this issue because in a time of possible emergency that is what is expected of us.
I welcome the tone adopted by Senator Manning in regard to the abortion referendum. That is precisely the tone that we require and, above all else, we must avoid any recriminations. He is right when saying that this House could provide leadership in this regard. We should do it sooner rather than later, a Chathaoirligh.
I join with the call for a debate on Sellafield. Under the rules of this House we can have a distinguished visitor in and I suggest to the Leader that we ask the British ambassador to come in and answer questions on the issue of Sellafield and defend the position of the British Government – which is, after all, meant to be a friendly nation. Will the Leader bring this matter to the Committee of Procedures and Privileges to ask the British ambassador to come in and address us? I am sure that will have all-party support and would make an extremely constructive contribution to the debate on Sellafield.
I very much agree with Senator Manning and others in calling for a debate on Sellafield. I agree with the proposal of Senator Ross and through our Leader of the House we should immediately express our concern to the ambassador. We should also bring to the attention of the British ambassador the commitment of Tony Blair during the general election campaign against the expansion of the nuclear industry in Britain. That is on record and it is even on television, so we need to hold him to his word. As a nation there is no way we will support what is being proposed on this matter.
It is not just a debate we need on Sellafield; we must make it clear that debate is not enough. Somehow or other we have to galvanise a determined, single minded nationwide outcry against this. I do not think it can wait. The more it sounds as though it is just another debate the less effective it will be. The Leader has to move on this immediately. I like what Senator Ross suggested because at least it gives some impact to the case we are making.
Will the Leader have an urgent debate – and I am not sure it is just a debate we need – on insurance? There is a crisis in the insurance coverage of the nation at the moment. This has come about for a couple of reasons, one of which is the failure of a UK insurance company, which has left a large number of Irish companies and individuals uninsured and unprotected. Yesterday I discovered a 2% Government levy which, as far as I can see, dates back to the PMPA problem in 1984. I may be incorrect on that. Will the Minister come in and tell us why we are paying – if we are still paying – for a PMPA levy? Where is that 2% going to now? Does it go to this company which is now a fully fledged active company again in different hands or are we paying it into the coffers of the Government and therefore making it much more difficult to handle the insurance problem? We need that answer immediately.
Yesterday I raised the question of passports for sale and my concern about the fact that we had introduced this as a topic and the Government had responded back in 1998 and said it would do something about it. The Leader will be pleased to know that yesterday afternoon the Government admitted it has set up a committee, it has checked with the committee and hopes to have a report in the next couple of weeks and to report that to the Cabinet and, therefore, make a decision. It is good to know something is happening at last.
I ask the Leader, who has been generous in this respect previously, for an early debate on the livestock industry and, more particularly, on the crisis in the cattle industry. Prices for slaughtered cattle in processing plants are about 10% less than a year ago. This is a serious crisis not only for producers but the country because the cattle industry is an important part of our export trade. What is happening this week is that the produce has dropped its price by 3 pence or 4 pence per lb. which is not justified by anything that has taken place in the marketplace. Almost two years ago the farming organisations took the law into their own hands and took the fight directly to the producers. The result was that the producers relented. The Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development should be in negotiations with the producers to ensure that this unjustified fall in prices does not take place. I ask the Leader to ask the Minister to come into the House to discuss the problem with us at an early date.
I support colleagues in the call for a debate on Sellafield which is a very urgent matter. At what stage is the disability legislation and can we hope to have it before the House in the near future? This legislation is long promised and long overdue. We have seen the difficulties that have arisen in the Sinnott and other cases. I hope this legislation will come before the House in the next number of weeks.
I concur with the concerns and the call for a debate on Sellafield. The arguments for a debate have been well articulated and do not need any embellishment from me. I support the call by Senator Quinn for a debate on the insurance industry. Serious situations are arising for small and medium and, indeed, large businesses. I have heard of one hotelier with three hotels who paid a premium of £160,000 last year and has now been quoted £490,000. That type of increase is unsustainable in the current market in that industry and others. A debate on, and a full assessment of, that industry is urgently required. Rationalisation is leading to, I will not go so far as to say a cartel type situation, but certainly there is an understanding that premia will be significantly increased.
I am not sure whether a debate is the correct way to address this issue but I ask the Leader to give consideration to the serious breach of security by a reporter at Dublin Airport recently. We owe it to ourselves and others who might be put at risk to ensure the highest standards of security pertain at airports and there should be no breaches such as that highlighted recently by the reporter.
I ask the Leader to make inquiries of the Bank of Ireland regarding its treatment of senior citizens. The idea that one cannot get one's own money out of the bank and must go out in inclement weather on most occasions and put oneself at risk of being mugged is hardly the right way to treat people who are probably the bank's biggest asset. Instead of PIN numbers for people over the age of 60, pensioners are in need of a little humane treatment from the banks. It is not good enough that it is not prepared to do anything about it. If you put your money into a bank you are entitled to get it out without going to an ATM machine. It is a ludicrous way to treat people.
We have had many debates here on the withdrawal of services in rural areas, financial services, closures of bank and the services which are important to small rural communities and small towns. We saw a substantial protest yesterday by sub-post office staff and post office managers in respect of their future. It is time the Government and particularly the Minister for Public Enterprise, Deputy O'Rourke, outlined the Government's commitment to rural Ireland in regard to the provision of services and whatever rationalisation is to take place in a proper way for the future. The Government has spent substantial moneys supporting rural communities. This area needs direction and attention. The Minister as 51% shareholder should be asked to come to the House to outline the Government's plan for the future with An Post and the services necessary to support rural communities in a planned and ordered way.
Senators Manning, O'Toole, Costello, Fitzgerald, Norris, Coghan, Ó Murchú, Ross, O'Dowd, Quinn, Keogh, Walsh called for a debate and statements on Sellafield as a matter of urgency. Certainly I can meet the leaders after the Order of Business and can give an assurance to the House that on the next sitting day, next Wednesday, I will include it for a long debate. An hour or two hours debate one day would not be adequate to reflect the dismay, the anger and the total surprise at this announcement in the UK about Sellafield. I am prepared to say that Fianna Fáil will forgo its Private Members' time on Wednesday night to allow for the longest and fullest debate to take place and to allow every Senator to make their contribution. I will meet with the leaders after the Order of Business in relation to this issue.
Senators Manning and Ó Murchú called for statements with the Minister for Health and Children present on the proposed abortion referendum. I have no difficulty in allowing for this at the earliest possible time within the next number of weeks. Senator O'Toole highlighted his concern and the need for a debate on the whole economy, the changing trends in the economy and, in particular, the ESRI report. As I said yesterday, we will allow time for such a debate in the next two weeks.
Senator Costello called for a debate on education. I have no difficulty with such a debate. Senator John Cregan called for a debate on the euro changeover. This is timely and we can leave time for this debate also. Senator Jackman called for a debate on special needs in education. I have already given a commitment to the Senator in relation to this issue.
Senators Quinn and Walsh asked for a debate on the insurance industry. This is an issue that has come to light in the past few weeks. Many reputable and long established family businesses have been left with no cover because of the difficulties being experienced by one or two insurance companies. I will certainly allow time for such a debate on Thursday, hopefully, of next week, if possible with the Minister present. Also I have noted Senator Quinn's up to date report on the passport position. As soon as that report is published we will have a debate on it. Senator Connor made an important point on prices for livestock and the livestock industry generally. I heard many express their concerns about this matter last night. This is a worthwhile debate and I will endeavour to have the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development here for such a debate as soon as possible.
Senator Keogh called for a debate on disabilities. I understand that on the list of legislation for this term the Bill on disabilities is included. I will come back to the Senator in relation to this matter.
Senator Ridge called for a debate on the banks, particularly in relation to our senior citizens who have money on deposit and who may wish to withdraw it at the bank branches rather than at the ATM machines. This is a reasonable request. It is an important issue. It all comes down to the trust in banks over many years. The changing trend is to focus on profit and that is basically what this is all about. It is about giving a better service to those whose business generates the largest profits and the other services are just considered as services which the banks must provide. Perhaps the debate sought by Senator Chambers on the up-to-date position regarding rural post offices and services in rural areas in general and the point Senator Ridge has made about people who have small amounts of money on deposit who are now being asked to take it out through ATMs in all kinds of weather and from all kinds of unsecured locations, can be taken together. There is an opportunity here for post offices, particularly in areas which will be affected by these changes. Perhaps the Government and Opposition can get together and come up with a winning formula which will help these post offices in areas where bank branches are being closed down. This is not just a problem in rural areas because bank branches are being closed in urban areas also.
On a point of order, the Leader forgot to answer my question about whether he would ask the British ambassador to come into the House.
That is a matter for the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
The Leader of the House did not address that and maybe he would like to do so.
It is a matter for the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
I thought it might be.
Order of Business agreed to.