The Order of Business is No. 1, European Parliament Elections (Amendment) Bill 2003 — Committee Stage, to be taken at the conclusion of the Order of Business and to conclude not later than 1 p.m. If it is felt that it is appropriate to continue with Report Stage, I will return to the House and discuss it with the party leaders.
Order of Business.
An amendment in my name was carried in the House yesterday. Will the Leader enter discussions with the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Coughlan, to ensure this amendment is not overturned? I do not see this as a defeat for the Government——
Yes, he does.
——but as a good day for the Seanad. Our primary role in this House——
That is yesterday's business.
I am referring to what will happen next week.
We must deal with today's Order of Business.
I am dealing with today's Order of Business. I appeal to the Leader——
That does not relate to today's Order of Business.
I am referring to a matter that will come before the House next week.
That is next week's business.
That is the question I am asking, I am entitled to know what will happen. This would be finished if the Cathaoirleach stopped interrupting me.
What?
This would all be over if the Cathaoirleach stopped interrupting and I would ask him to do that. This is a serious matter.
I take exception to that.
I am asking Leader of the House, given the decision of the House yesterday——
Yesterday's business does not arise and I am ruling the Senator out of order. He must speak on today's Order of Business.
I am referring to today's Order of Business. This House has an important role in reviewing legislation. When this matter was debated in the other House last week, less than an hour was devoted to it, while we spent six hours on it yesterday. I urge the Government not to overturn this amendment.
That is a matter for the Government. Today's business is the European Parliament Elections (Amendment) Bill.
This House must stand up for itself. It is a reviewing body and we must respect——
I ask the Senator to speak on today's Order of Business.
I am speaking on today's Order of Business and I ask for respect for this side of the House from the Cathaoirleach.
I take grave exception to that. I respect every side of the House.
The Cathaoirleach is creating this difficulty for himself.
No.
Senators
Withdraw.
Indeed he is.
That is wrong.
On a second matter——
I ask the Senator to withdraw that remark.
What remark?
That I am creating a problem for myself.
No, I will not withdraw it.
If the Senator does not withdraw the remark, I will ask for him to be named.
What did I say that was wrong?
It is unfair to accuse the Chair of creating a problem for itself.
Any objective person watching would say the same.
Will the Senator withdraw the remark?
If the Cathaoirleach is taking offence, I will withdraw the remark.
I thank the Senator. He can speak on today's Order of Business.
I ask the Leader to refer to that matter in the course of her reply on today's Order of Business.
Last week I asked for a debate on sentencing policy. There is considerable public disquiet concerning a recent case in Dundalk where a person was convicted of an appalling charge of manslaughter against a German national, yet we discovered after the trial that the named individual had committed a similar offence only ten years earlier. We need a debate on sentencing policy. I am not suggesting that the Executive or the Houses of the Oireachtas should interfere in any way in court policy on this issue, but we need to know from Government its policy on a range of issues, including concurrent sentencing, the length of time offenders serve and the issue between manslaughter and murder, as was referred to by Mr. Justice Carney in a lecture he gave only six months ago. I urge the Leader to organise a debate on this matter.
It is remarkable that yesterday when we were honouring Senator Maurice Hayes on his accolade of European of the Year, the big boys club of Europe was meeting the big boys from the UK, France and Germany. Most of Europe cheered when the Taoiseach at the beginning of our Presidency made it clear that Europe did not see itself working in a two-tier direction. I do not know what these chaps discussed yesterday, maybe it was simply sex, television and sport, but in terms of the impression they are giving, it is perhaps time they were told a few home truths, namely, that France and the UK, in the course of their histories, not that long ago were attempting to create empires covering half the world and that the third element of the triumvirate meeting yesterday sought world domination not that long ago.
The rest of us should not need to be sitting around like compliant sheep wondering what these guys are at. We should remind them that the UK has never been completely committed to Europe. It opted out of the Social Chapter, the eurozone and is now trying to create a new situation where it is half in and half out. That is simply not acceptable. The Germans might be reminded that their economy is dragging down the economic development of the rest of Europe and France should look at how adequately it applies European directives and makes them work.
The rest of us should not be simply sitting around; the rest of Europe might well also have a meeting and exchange views on what they think about these matters and make it clear that this kind of macho display by the three big boys can be defeated by the simple rule of democracy. I ask the Taoiseach to take a strong, firm and unapologetic line on it.
On a point of order, how can it be that a lecture on colonialism from Senator O'Toole is in order whereas a matter of obvious pertinence to this House from Senator Brian Hayes is not?
That is not a point of order.
The Cathaoirleach has allowed Senator O'Toole to give us the benefit of his worthy thoughts with salutary order for the past several minutes——
That is not a point of order.
——whereas comments on the ordering of the business of this House seem to be clearly out of order. I do not understand that.
Leaders are allowed certain latitude.
The Cathaoirleach should take this up with Senator Brian Hayes——
Yesterday's business or next week's business is not appropriate business now. Senator O'Toole was making a point about a matter that was of concern.
To conclude——
Senator O'Meara is offering.
I had not concluded.
I take it the Senator was still making a point.
I am sorry I upset the sensitivities of the post-empire view of my colleague on the Labour benches on this matter.
I ask the Senator to make his point on the Order of Business.
On that basis, it would be useful if we had a further debate, although not immediately, with the Taoiseach on this issue. He was good enough to come in some weeks ago and halfway through the Presidency it would be worthwhile to debate the matter again. Such a debate would give the Taoiseach the opportunity to raise this issue. In that sense, I point out to my Labour colleague that this issue is very much appropriate to the Order of Business, and I am sorry I upset his sensitivities.
I agree with the point made by Senator Brian Hayes.
Yesterday's business or next week's business is not a matter for the Order of Business today.
On the amendment that was passed in this House——
That was passed yesterday and is in the past tense.
I am simply stating that I agree with the point made by Senator Brian Hayes.
The meeting of the big three, for want of a better phrase, raises an important issue for us, particularly as we hold the Presidency of the European Union. Was the Taoiseach briefed or consulted as the current President? In that regard, there is a major issue for us as a small state within the European Union, particularly with ten relatively small states joining the Union on 1 May. It would be useful to debate the matter in this House.
We raised the matter of dormant accounts yesterday and sought clarification on the Government's intentions in that regard, which we have not received. Specifically, why has the Government changed its mind on a very important element of legislation only recently passed through the Houses? At the minimum, we are entitled to know why the Government has changed its mind on such a fundamental issue and also when that legislation will come forward. Will the Leader also indicate when the legislation on electronic voting will come forward given that the timeframe for its introduction is tight?
I ask the Leader to consider a review of the issue of insurance, which has been raised on a number of occasions in this House and is a matter of great public concern. I note there is coverage in the national media this morning of a report by the Competition Authority which indicates that the level of charges by insurance brokers to consumers has increased considerably and is now forming a substantial component of insurance charges. It is worrying to note, for instance, that most consumers do not know the percentage of their insurance payments that go in charges to brokers. As the Competition Authority states, there is clearly a need for reform. We have had considerable reform in the insurance area, but the level of profit and the level of charges by insurance brokers appears to have been ignored for whatever reason. It is clearly emerging as an important issue, and I ask the Leader of the House to consider it.
I support the request by the Senator O'Meara that the Leader make time available in the next few weeks for a full debate on the report by the Competition Authority and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment published yesterday, particularly on the percentage profits of insurance brokers from insurance premia. Much work has been done in regard to the insurance industry. The Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business has carried out extremely important work but most Members of the House are not on that committee. It is important that we have a full debate on that report, the insurance industry and the workings of the PIAB.
Whatever happened to the much lauded State inventory of assets that was to be conducted, or perhaps was conducted, by the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Parlon, a year or more ago? It was announced with much fanfare at the time and we all looked forward to it. In response to a request I made at the time, the Leader promised that the Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, would come to the House at a suitable time to speak to us about it. This relates to a study in regard to a proposed sell-off of whatever assets would have been surplus to requirements. I would like to hear what stage it is at.
When is it intended to take Report Stage of the Civil Registration Bill? What, if any, amendments might it contain? I believe that gets around the issue.
There is more than one way to skin a cat.
I do not believe the Leader will be in a position to say what or how many amendments there will be to that Bill.
As ever, I am always grateful for the Cathaoirleach's kindness. If the Leader wishes to address it, that would be welcome. As the Cathaoirleach would say, he does not have any control over what the Leader might say in her responses.
However, I have control over what the Senator may say.
The Cathaoirleach always finds me a very obedient State servant. I support the calls by Senators Leyden and O'Meara for a debate on the Competition Authority's report. Such a debate would be timely.
The House will probably want to recognise the presence in the Visitors Gallery of a distinguished representative of South America.
On the Order of Business, please.
Continuing on the foreign affairs area, will the Leader arrange for the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, to come into the House to explain policy formation in principal areas of Irish foreign policy, following the announcement in the newspaper in recent days that we are giving full diplomatic recognition to the military junta in Burma? This seems extraordinary. We continually hear about the miseries of Aung San Suu Kyi, whom we made a freeman of the city of Dublin. Government is posing as the friend of democracy in this area and now we have this sudden shift. It is very important that, as a matter of principle, the Seanad, as a House of the Oireachtas, is not party to these very dramatic and violent shifts.
I ask for this debate because we have not yet had one, although there is a motion on Tibet on today's Order Paper in the name of the Independent Senators. This is exactly the same issue and it shows that if one does not challenge a situation such as that in Tibet, the whole procedure spreads. In 1959, Frank Aiken said to the United Nations General Assembly that Tibet had been as free and as fully in control of its own affairs as any country in the UN and more than most of them. We co-sponsored three resolutions on its independence in the 1960s——
That is a point that could be made in the debate.
——mild revolt against any idea that we should treat Tibet, which has always been accepted as a distinct and separate entity, as an internal Chinese question. We now find that the Department of Foreign Affairs has done what successive representatives of Ireland have said is utterly wrong and illegal. There is nothing in the treaties or the diplomatic documents——
The Senator has made his point adequately.
——we have signed stating we recognise Tibet as part of China. We do not.
The Senator should conclude.
If we want to recognise it as such, the Government must bring the matter before both Houses of the Oireachtas. I ask the Leader to request that the Minister for Foreign Affairs come to the House to debate the question of Burma.
I support Senator O'Toole on the point he raised about the summit meeting between the United Kingdom, France and Germany. It is very ominous and damaging and serves to undermine the Community. Perhaps the meeting was to try to mend fences after the debacle to which the three countries were party regarding the war in Iraq. However, the feeling abroad is that the meeting was designed to set the foundations for a two-speed Europe, which could be very damaging for the Community in the longer term. It is not acceptable to have this type of arrangement on the eve of enlargement. Will the Leader arrange for the Minister for Foreign Affairs to give us some indication as to how this matter will be dealt with or if it is to be ignored?
I believe the three countries have had such meetings before. We should not read too much into them but such meetings of three important leaders in Europe are very damaging at a time when the European Union is to be enlarged. If they want to be part of the European Community, they should abide by its rules and not dictate who should be appointed to positions, etc. It is totally unacceptable. I ask the Leader to arrange a debate with the Minister for Foreign Affairs.
Farmers are caught between the Departments of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Agriculture and Food and the advisory body, Teagasc, regarding the implementation of the nitrates directive. I call on the Leader to invite the Minister for Agriculture and Food to the House as a matter of urgency to debate the nitrates action plan. If this is implemented in its current format, it will result in a loss of income for Irish farmers of between 10% and 20%. There is great anger among the farming community on this issue and the Government does not seem to have a policy on it. One Department is contradicting the other and the advisory body is coming up with a different statement on the matter. I ask the Leader to urgently invite the Minister to the House to discuss this issue.
When is it anticipated that Report Stage of the European Parliament Elections (Amendment) Bill will be taken?
I remind Members that I asked for a debate on human rights as soon as possible. It is my pleasure to let Senator Norris know that the Vice-President of Colombia has been invited to the Committee on Foreign Affairs to talk about human rights in Colombia.
The Senator should address the Chair.
Senator Norris is a member of that committee.
Free the Colombia 2,000.
I endorse what Senators Daly and O'Toole said about the need for a debate, protest or opposing voice regarding the summit held between the three leaders in Europe. I do not know what we expected because this is the inevitable result of handing over so much power to the European Union. It reminds me of IBEC and ICTU, the public service unions, the INTO and other such organisations.
Is the Senator supporting Senator O'Toole and Senator Daly?
I am supporting Senator O'Toole in a very limited way. We must remind ourselves that when Germany and France breached the Stability and Growth Pact, nobody seemed to worry too much about it, but when we breached it people got very hot under the collar. Therefore, this is a legitimate issue for debate and one in respect of which the Taoiseach should intervene.
The second issue I wish to raise, which is very appropriate for debate and which was raised by several Senators, is the insurance industry, particularly insurance brokers. The Competition Authority concentrated on it yesterday. We should ask what we are doing by tolerating the activities of small numbers of people who are ripping off large numbers of people. I ask the Leader and others — I am slightly in two minds about this myself — that if we insist on bringing in many politicians and MEPs to address us, which I believe has limited value, whether it would be more useful to ask people with the expertise of John Fingleton in the Competition Authority and others to come to the House so we could ask questions on this issue and on why the Competition Authority reached its findings.
Hear, hear.
I call for a debate on pornography. This issue was first raised by Senator Tuffy and I supported her call in this regard some weeks ago. A debate would be useful because of the proliferation of pornography. We might consider whether it is harmless or if it has a detrimental effect on society, particularly regarding abuse.
I ask the Leader to invite the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to the House to discuss the closure of a number of prisons. We have a potential powder keg in prisons due to overcrowding and this is a matter of great alarm in most prisons. We should discuss this issue urgently.
I support Senator White's call for a debate on human rights. We have had such a debate before but I am not sure whether we had one during this term. I have always found such debates exceptional, particularly because of issues that generally come to the fore during the Order of Business. One can appreciate that it is exceptionally difficult to have any type of informed debate on the Order of Business — this is not its purpose. However, several issues need to be debated, some of which apply to Ireland and others to other countries. Wherever Irish citizens are involved, we should not reduce the debate to slogans or satire.
Hear, hear.
Whatever the pros and cons of the issue — I include Colombia in this regard — it is particularly important that we are very careful in the contributions we make. Again, I compliment Senator White on the steadfast manner in which she has approached this issue. She is a credit to the House for having done so.
The Leader of the Opposition, Senator Brian Hayes, referred to an issue that arose last night. It is a matter of saying, "Lads and lassies, we lost that vote; we should have won it — role reversal. We will move on from that."
So the section remains.
I am saying no more. I am quite cognisant of the fact that the Cathaoirleach might axe me down. I am very careful because he is the boss. The legislative process will take its due course.
Will it not be axed down?
That is a nice sentence which was given to me to say in case Members think that I have suddenly become erudite; I have not. Senator Brian Hayes also asked for a debate on sentencing policy. Yesterday there was an embryonic type of debate on custodial places for young people under a certain age. We are trying to marry those issues and decide on a debate time. About two hours outside time for legislation will be available next week. That is being finalised.
Senator O'Toole spoke about the big three. I was struck by that and by BBC 2 last night and various other programmes. I am equally struck by the fact that the Taoiseach seems to have taken it rather calmly and he is particularly friendly with the British Prime Minister. Perhaps it was an attempt to get over the frisson that arose over Iraq and to have a debate. However, I did not like it. I felt the three of them were meeting and in effect saying: "We are the big boys. We are going to guide and deal with everything that is happening here and the rest of you stand back." There was a large amount of showmanship and grandstanding about it. There is something ironic about the UK claiming to be at the heart of Europe and every time one goes there, one has to change one's currency, with all the bother that entails. That is only one example. We can trust the Taoiseach's judgment in matters such as this and the way he is reacting.
Senator O'Meara echoed the concern over dormant accounts. We are looking at that issue to see whether the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Ó Cuív, might be persuaded to explain to the House what is happening. We are also considering a debate on the Competition Authority's report. There is only one debating slot next week and we will see what arises.
The Senator also asked when the legislation on electronic voting will be introduced. What a change there has been in a week. Now there is an independent board and there will be legislation. I will find out when the Bill will be introduced.
Senator Leyden asked about the Competition Authority's report, which has just been published. If the Cathaoirleach will indulge me, by telephoning around and not using a broker, I got the cost of my car insurance policy reduced by €200.
Congratulations.
Is that all? The Leader would want to take it up with Senator Leyden.
The House will come to order.
Senator Coghlan wants an audit of what has happened in the State inventory. I will inquire.
I wonder where it is at.
I will inquire and report back to him. He asked about next week's business and that will take its due course.
Senator Norris asked about Burma and foreign affairs policy in general. We will endeavour to get answers. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, was here but every time one wakes up he is in another country. He is extremely busy. I will inquire whether the Minister of State in the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Kitt, can address the House.
Senator Daly supports Senator O'Toole on the subject of the big three. Whatever they meant to achieve, the underlying theme coming across to people is, in effect: "We are the big boys. We are going to be in a two-speed Europe."
Senator Bannon spoke about farmers. The nitrates directive is a matter for the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, not the Department of Agriculture and Food. He asked when Report Stage of the European Parliament Elections (Amendment) Bill 2003 will be taken. I said at the start that we would monitor what was happening on Committee Stage and if the leaders thought Report Stage could be dealt with adequately, we would then take it. I will monitor the situation.
I do not think there will be any agreement on taking Report Stage today.
The Senator does not want it, even if the Committee Stage ends in half an hour?
No.
That is fine. I thought it was something that might be accommodated.
It will go until 1 o'clock.
Senator White asked for a debate on human rights. We are endeavouring to arrange that debate. Senator Ross supported his colleague, Senator O'Toole, in a limited way and Senator Daly in a more general way. He also raised the insurance matter. I will talk to him privately.
Senator Lydon asked for a debate on pornography. Senator Feighan referred to the overcrowding of prisons which he believes will lead to great difficulty. Senator Ó Murchú asked that every endeavour is made to have a human rights debate and he praised Senator White's input in this regard.
I bring to the House's attention the factthat the Public Service Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2004 — the pensions Bill — has been published this morning.
It is a Bill I hope every politician will reject.
That is beside the point. We are debating it next Tuesday evening. Lest Members all tear away, as we all do on a Thursday, and then say blithely to me on Tuesday that they never got the Bill, it is in their pigeon holes this morning and it will be debated next week.
Order of Business agreed to.