The Order of Business is No. 1, Proceeds of Crime Bill 1999 — Report and Final Stages, to be taken at the conclusion of the Order of Business and to conclude not later than 12.30 p.m.; No. 2, Garda Síochána Bill 2004 — Committee Stage (resumed), to be taken at the conclusion of No. 1 until 1 p.m. This Bill is being inserted today and may get a little more time; and No. 3, Health Bill 2004 — Second Stage, to be taken at 1.30 p.m. and to conclude not later than 4 p.m., with the contributions of spokespersons not to exceed 15 minutes and those of other Senators not to exceed 10 minutes. Members may share time and the Minister is to be called on to reply not later than five minutes before the conclusion of Second Stage. There will be a sos from 1 p.m. until 1.30 p.m.
Order of Business.
There have been requests in this House in the past week for a full debate on Northern Ireland. I know the Leader is doing everything in her power to ensure we have such a debate next week. Can she confirm that such a debate will take place? This would be very important, given the events of the past 24 hours. It is important that the debate would be full and broad and not confined to leaders.
I would prefer if we could have a one-day debate. I say that for the following reason. It is now clear that there is a difference between the Government parties on the issue which constitutes the ending of IRA criminality and violence. In this matter, a certain debt of gratitude is owed to the Progressive Democrats who have sought clarity on this matter in the past 24 hours.
We now discover that a side deal, which was not published and was not part of the discussions at the press conference this week, contains other information, such as that surrounding the release of the killers of Detective Garda McCabe and the information sought by my colleague, Senator Cummins, and by me on the issue of the two persons still at large for the manslaughter of Detective Garda McCabe.
However, there is another matter, that of Seanad reform. We now discover that the Government is attempting to give some seats in this House to the Northern Ireland parties and that this was part of a side deal. Whatever about the rights and wrongs of this position, I thought we were all of the view that Seanad reform should not be cherry-picked, that we in this House produced a body of reform proposals that would be taken in its entirety.
Hear, hear.
All or nothing.
We agreed that one bit could not be excluded in favour of other bits. It is important at this juncture that the debate would occur next week and that every one of the 60 Members of this House would be encouraged to participate in it.
Following his joint statement with the Taoiseach in Belfast, Tony Blair spoke to the House of Commons that night. The following afternoon, Paul Murphy led a full debate. We have yet to have a debate in this House. The Government has conceded to a debate next week in the other House. It is not possible to go into the Christmas recess without a full debate on this matter. These matters are so important not just to the integrity of this House, but to the integrity of the process itself.
I support what Senator Brian Hayes said. It came as a surprise to me to hear there was this side deal. It is insulting to this House that it was done without reference to the House. Can the Cathaoirleach or the Leader indicate to the House whether they had prior knowledge of this wheeling and dealing with Seanad seats? It worries me particularly because I referred last week to the IRA demands for the release of bank robbers who were involved in something that could not be excused by a political fig leaf and were defining themselves within an ethos of criminality. Are we going to have criminals — ordinary, not decent criminals — parachuted into this House?
I note the IRA also balked at a phrase which indicated it would not continue with paramilitary beatings and so on. This is very worrying. If there is going to be a cessation, we demand an entire cessation. It is not tolerable that people would continue knee-capping, beating and exiling people, and, on the fringes, get involved in drug running. I support a call for a full and open debate. At this stage the Government should make clear to us the full terms of any agreement that was being negotiated.
I also call for a debate on Iraq and the Middle East. This morning we heard on the radio the report of the head of the Iraqi Red Crescent who was at last allowed into Falluja. There were no families visible. Many houses that were still extant had white flags on them. A potato barn full of bodies was discovered. I asked yesterday that the Leader would request the Government to ask for a full statement from the occupying forces on the condition of the civilian population in Falluja. We are entitled to that statement.
Finally, could I draw the attention of the House to the very worrying report on bullying in today's Irish Independent? It highlights the bullying of gay students. It is taken so seriously by that newspaper that there is an editorial on it which states that a survey of school teachers found that 94% of teachers in boys schools have witnessed bullying of homosexuals while the equivalent figure for girls is 55%. Some 87% of teachers who had witnessed bullying of homosexuals saw more than one such incident in a school year.
I contribute to a charity in central Africa and I received from it the biography of a remarkable young Irish doctor, Dr. Mike Meegan. In an aside half-way through the book he told the story of somebody who worked with him in the past — whom I think is also a doctor — who was bullied so severely in a suburban Dublin secondary school where he had the word "fag" carved with a knife on his back, that he attempted to commit suicide. We have dealt in this House with the issue of suicide. We know there is a high rate of suicide among young males. The House should also take into account the fact that there is a seven times multiplier when those young people happen to be of a homosexual orientation. This is a report we should take very seriously.
More than half those schools do not use any teaching material, even though it is provided in various books, regarding sexual identity and sexual orientation. This is necessary in the interests of the welfare of the young people in schools.
I join with colleagues in seeking a debate on Northern Ireland. There was a time in the early part of the peace process when most of the parties engaged in a measure of constructive fudge. In fairness, it got us over some humps and difficulties which might otherwise have been difficult to avert. That time is now over. As we hopefully move to closure on a final agreement there is a need for clarity and for everything to be up front and clear to the public. It baffles that the Government should in that context engage in side deals or covert arrangements with one party or another.
We are aware of the sensitive issues involved. Those of us on the Opposition benches know that as much as anybody else. Nonetheless, what is important now is that everybody has faith in the process going forward——
Hear, hear.
—— that we know what is happening and that everything is up front. If it is necessary to make difficult or unpleasant decisions we should at least know what has been agreed in our name by our sovereign Government. We owe a debt of gratitude to the Tánaiste for making it clear that it is not just the issue of photographs that is outstanding. I urge the Leader to speak to the Taoiseach, in particular on the issue of Seanad reform and to inquire of him what, if anything, has been agreed in regard to that issue. There is a good tradition of appointing members of both communities in Northern Ireland to this House and it is right that should continue.
Hear, hear.
However, it is right and necessary that it should be a balanced approach and that we should seek to get the representatives of both communities. Efforts to do that will necessarily be damaged if Seanad reform appears to be driven by the needs, requirements or desires of one party, which appears to be happening at present. I join Senator Brian Hayes and Senator Norris in seeking a debate on this matter next week.
There is general agreement on all sides of the House that this very important matter needs to be debated within the coming week. There is no dispute about that. I also agree with the proposition that there should be more than just one speaker from each group. However, it has been my experience in the past that when we have very vigorous calls for debates, the vigour of the calls is not matched by the vigour of the participation in the debates. I question if it would need to go on for a whole day. We also need to be fairly circumspect in the utterances we make with regard to these issues. I said as much earlier this week.
The recognition of the need to uphold and not endanger anyone's personal rights and safety is not a side issue; it is contained in the document. It explicitly states that all IRA volunteers have been given specific instructions not to engage in any activity which might endanger the new agreement. In terms of the settlement, we have to know if the IRA will give up all its activities, including criminality, as well as the verified decommissioning of its arms. One cogent example of such activity in the context of this State's democratic system is the surveillance of Members of both Houses. This is intolerable in a democratic State; it cannot happen.
Hear, hear.
The IRA must be prepared to explicitly state that these types of activities will be discontinued; it is a sine qua non of the settlement. The Tánaiste was correct to state that the issues involved are more than a matter of pictures. We need to debate the matter. On these occasions, I am always mindful of the fact that I served in this House, as did others, with Senator Wilson and recall what he said in the face of what he had to suffer. Perhaps there is a message there for all of us. All of us, from all sides, will have to accept some very unpalatable aspects in order to bring a conclusion to this matter.
Yesterday, I too requested such a debate. I also pointed out that the Tánaiste had stated that more than a photograph was at issue. I am glad she made that statement because the spinning of Sinn Féin — which is masterful at such activity, as is the DUP — was that it came down to the issue of a photograph. However, we now know in terms of what has been revealed today that it is about more than that. It would appear the IRA was not prepared to sign up to end criminality such as exiling, knee-cappings and so on. How could the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, countersign a deal on behalf of the Progressive Democrats in which this important component was not agreed to?
Yesterday, we witnessed the nauseating occasion in the Lower House of DeputyCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin congratulating the IRA on its involvement in this matter. I am glad that people turned on him in response. Let us cut out this hypocrisy now. If there are other elements to the deal, let us have a discussion and air them in the open. My party has always been constructive and supportive of this agreement and the Taoiseach's actions throughout. I strongly resent the recent statement of the Minister for Defence, Deputy O'Dea, that Fine Gael was trying to make a political football of the matter by raising in the Lower House a question about whether the release of the killers of Detective Garda Jerry McCabe was part of the agreement. I come from that area and I make no apologies to anyone for stating my view on the issue. I remind the Minister that the same viewpoint is shared by other parties in the area. It is a very important issue. We need this debate next week and we need to discuss in the open exactly what is happening.
I support the requests for an ample debate on Northern Ireland next week because it is necessary. While we were very close to agreement and while not underestimating the importance of what remained to be agreed, it is important that people from all parties and the Governments do not draw back from what they have been prepared to agree. I was encouraged, for example, that the IRA interview in An Phoblacht yesterday exactly matched what was in the statements released by the Governments the previous day. It was not, as has happened in the past, promptly withdrawn from the table when no deal was reached. I was equally encouraged when Jeffrey Donaldson, on behalf of the DUP, confirmed that his party was sticking with what it had agreed on other fronts. It also behoves the Governments to stick to what they have been prepared to agree.
In the case of unpopular aspects, it may require a certain degree of discipline and backbone. However, I am encouraged. There has been admirable unity among Ministers sitting at the Cabinet table during difficult negotiations, which are not easy for anyone. We need to understand those considerations.
There is definitely a need for a debate on Northern Ireland. There would be time for it next week if we delayed taking Committee Stage of the Health Bill. I do not know if Senators have had a chance to read it as it was passed by Dáil Éireann yesterday but it has changed considerably from the Bill as initiated. It is reported in today's newspapers that it is not proposed to implement this legislation on 1 January. Therefore, we would have time to take Committee Stage of this very important Bill when the House resumes and have the debate on Northern Ireland next week.
Will the Leader ask the Minister for Education and Science to come before the House to address the issue of bullying in schools, which was raised by Senator Norris? A pilot project on this issue was carried out in Donegal, which was devised by Professor Mona O'Moore of Trinity College. It was a huge success and everyone agreed it should be promoted all over the country but this has not happened. We moan and groan about young people committing suicide, yet we could make a difference in this area by implementing policies on bullying in schools but the Department of Education and Science is doing nothing about it.
I request a debate on the communications industry, in particular the recognition by the regulator, ComReg, that there is a "tacit understanding", which in anyone's language means a duopoly, for a pricing arrangement between Vodafone and O2. It has been my opinion for some time that the Irish mobile telephone business is something of an Irish take-away. In the first instance, Vodafone purchased Eircell in a paper transaction, knowing full well that the results Vodafone had to publish that year would indicate that the price of those shares would fall and they have not really recovered to date. However, Vodafone has made substantial profits and continues to take substantial amounts of money out of the Irish economy. It is unwilling and unhelpful and has blocked the regulator's attempt to provide an MVNO, which would allow companies to use existing carrier networks and purchase block amounts of air time at a discount rate and sell them on. This has happened consistently. It is wrong and should be regulated. The economy must provide good value in the mobile telephone market.
Last week, I raised the status of the so-called "on-the-runs" and whether they would be entitled to an amnesty. I asked what was the Government's position on the matter and whether those concerned would not serve one day in prison as a result of their crimes. The Leader informed us that she would raise the matter with the Taoiseach. It appears from today's newspapers that the answer is before us; these people will be included in any deal, of which fact we were not informed previously. I also note that these new converts to democracy are now insisting on dictating on who should be Members of this House and how it should be reformed.
That is a complete misrepresentation.
That is a lie.
The Senators were not interrupted.
It is absolutely disgraceful that this could even be contemplated.
Hear, hear.
I firmly support the requests for a debate on Northern Ireland, which would deal specifically with these matters.
Has the Senator read the report on Seanad reform?
I read and contributed to that report. I will keep my remaining comments for the debate on Northern Ireland.
A debate on Northern Ireland would be helpful because it is important that we do not allow a vacuum to develop which would be filled by people and issues often associated with agendas which have nothing to do with the peace process. I agree with the speakers on both sides because this House should be central to the debate. Senator Brian Hayes referred to what happened over a 24-hour period. It worries me that we are changing modes at a very accelerated pace. We made progress in the past because we had a cross-party agreement. It is important that we can ascertain the credibility or otherwise of some of the statements now in the newspapers. I do not know the status of this deal but I accept that the status of the central deal which was made available to us by the Government and to which all of us in this House agreed was particularly important. We all agreed we should debate it.
Regarding the Seanad Éireann issue, I am a Member of this House for more than seven years. Throughout those years, I and other speakers promoted the idea of Seanad representation from Northern Ireland — not simply one or two people nominated by the Taoiseach — particularly because we realised one can be much more successful dealing with issues face to face rather than through megaphone diplomacy. Many of us disagreed with some of the proposals for Seanad reform but I heard no disagreement in this House on the proposal for representation from Northern Ireland.
I do not know who is putting the other spin on this issue but such a spin, if correct, would be hurtful. I do not believe it is correct. I support calls for an "ample" debate. A balanced debate should take place. I hope we can maintain the cohesion of purpose which we have had among all Members in public life.
I fully agree with what has been said on this issue and in particular with what Senator Ó Murchú said. Over the years I have said that this is the wrong time for a debate on Northern Ireland because intemperate language can do a great deal of harm when discussions are going on. I now believe the time is right for such a debate. So much is happening. Now that an agreement has been published, and because it appears there are some doubts about part of that agreement which did not initially appear in public, it is time for a debate. Intemperate language in the past caused harm when negotiations were going on, but this is the right time to discuss the issues.
On another matter, my attention was drawn yesterday to the absence of an opportunity for unused coins to be donated to charity or used for some other purpose. According to figures I was given yesterday, every person in Britain has 350 small coins either in jam jars or down the back of sofas or somewhere else. I read that when Finland issued the euro currency, it decided not to issue one cent and two cent coins. Perhaps the proposal should be put to the Minister for Finance, or to whoever makes the relevant decisions, that in the new year we should consider whether we value those coins. I am told that in Britain, more than half of the coins issued, 13 billion out of a total of 22 billion, are lying unused. We could perhaps give our coins to charity or decide not to issue one cent and two cent coins in the future, and do so without giving rise to the dangers of inflation. I do not know about other Members but I do not see the younger generation using these coins in the future. They seem to have no regard for these coins as they leave them behind, or on the ground. Let us consider abolishing them or finding some other solution.
Members have spoken with great sincerity about Northern Ireland this morning, which indicates that we need a comprehensive debate on the issues as soon as possible. No doubt the Leader will ensure that such a debate takes place next week. It would be helpful in bringing us towards a degree of clarification. Reading the media dispatches over the past 48 hours, it is easy to forget that 72 hours ago we appeared to be on the verge of great progress, of a major step forward. An agreement was drawn up between the British and Irish Governments. The Irish Government went into this agreement presumably with full collective Cabinet responsibility. Every component of both Government parties agreed to the document issued. It is therefore disquieting now to see some division in the Government on the substance of what appears to have been agreed, whether in the official document or in some sort of side document. We need certainty and clarity as soon as possible.
We must be careful how we approach this issue. Over the years we have said that it is not a matter for point scoring either within the political parties or between them, because the issue is far too important. At the last meeting some months ago of the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body, which I and some of my colleagues attended, I made the point that while we had crossed many bridges, the one quality still somewhat lacking was generosity. I feel that even more strongly today. We have difficult hurdles to jump and some will cause pain to many sides. We must nevertheless keep to the fore of our mind that we are steps away from bringing peace to an island that has been at war for generations. As we approach Christmas, that is a huge prize. Sacrifices have been made on all sides and in all political parties. I hope we will have the mature political leadership to bring us through.
It seems likely we will have a debate on the matter next week.
I look forward to that and I hope we will approach it maturely and will be allowed to ask the hard questions because people have genuine fears and concerns. I hope we will also try to listen and understand, and appreciate that we can finally solve this problem if people are generous, understanding and forgiving in their approach.
Well said.
I was struck by what Senator ÓMurchú said and it should be echoed on this side of this House. The recent leak to the newspapers which raised the possibility of it being somehow embedded in the agreement that we would have representatives from Northern Ireland in this House has been interpreted as somehow slipping terrorists into the House. If that were so, all of us would condemn it and protect ourselves from any such element of a deal.
In the past, this House has been a proud debater of Northern Ireland specifically because it has people from the extraordinarily different traditions which make up Ireland. We should exploit that rather than fight shy of it. For all its faults, one of the great talents or bonuses of this House has been those Members from Northern Ireland appointed by successive Taoisigh. They have come from both traditions and have made a tremendous contribution to understanding between Members of the Irish Parliament.
Hear, hear.
Let us not underestimate that. I include Seamus Mallon, John Robb, Gordon Wilson and all others. They played a significant and serious role. There is however a terrible danger in a reluctance to allow us to debate Northern Ireland on the grounds that we are somehow irresponsible, or will say something improper. We are elected representatives, here to discuss immediate issues in a mature fashion. The idea that we would say anything that was inflammatory is insulting and should not be countenanced. I plead with the Leader of the House to insist, whether the Taoiseach likes it or not, that before Christmas we have a debate on Northern Ireland. If the Taoiseach says "No" the Leader should tell him we are having it anyway.
: Hear, hear.
I wish to support the call for a debate on Northern Ireland next week. It is long overdue and the time is right for such a debate.
As soon as possible in the new year, will the Leader invite the Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, who is responsible for the Office of Public Works, to debate the progress of the restoration programme by Waterways Ireland of the Royal Canal which will open up the canal for boat traffic from the city to the Shannon, up into Northern Ireland and down to Limerick? There has been somewhat of a go-slow in the progress for the past two years. There was a great hullabaloo when funding of €20 million was announced five or six years ago and much work was done. The canal has been opened up past Mullingar to Abbeyshrule. I believe there are five or six culverts in my own County Longford on which action needs to be taken quickly in order to open the waterway to the Shannon. This would benefit tourism north, south, east and west. It is of the utmost importance that it be tackled and acted upon as soon as possible in 2005 and it warrants a debate in the House.
I plead with the Leader of the House that next week when the Health Bill is being taken it would not be rushed through the House as happened in the other House yesterday. I regard as disgraceful the manner in which the Government brought forward many amendments on Report Stage.
We are not discussing the Dáil Bill now, Senator.
I wish to explain the background.
Order, please.
The Bill will come to the House next week but it has not been properly debated——
It will be in the House today.
It will be here today but Committee Stage will be taken next week, I presume. Disability groups and other groups have not been given a chance to look at the amendments.
Next week's business has not been decided yet.
The Government has overturned amendments on Committee Stage. It is a very important Bill and the time limit on discussing it seems to have moved. This House should debate it properly because it was not properly debated in the other House.
I understand the schools building programme may be announced next week and this may be an opportune time to invite the Minister for Education and Science to the House to outline the programme. I am sure there will be many disappointed schools next week——
And some very happy schools too.
It is very worrying that the Government has failed to spend this year's budget for school buildings and it is important that this does not happen again. I ask the Leader to invite the Minister to the House next week for a short debate.
Senator Brian Hayes, the Leader of the Opposition, spoke about what he termed "the side deal". He said that Seanad reform should not be cherry-picked. I wish to be quite clear about the matter. The report on Seanad reform was issued to every Member of this House. The Senator was a member of the committee that sat here in the Chamber and which met with parties from Northern Ireland and from this jurisdiction. Everything was published in the package on Seanad reform. This House debated the matter for three days and everybody was given an opportunity to speak on it. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has set up a committee and he has written to each party leader asking them to put forward a name. Senator Brian Hayes is aware of this because——
I never suggested anything to the contrary. I do not know what the Leader's point is.
I ask the Senator to allow me to finish. I sent him a copy of the letter.
What is the Senator's point?
I will make my point.
Order, please. I ask that points are made through the Chair.
I apologise, a Chathaoirligh. Senator Brian Hayes was given plenty of time to posture and I will make my point now.
I do not regard my comments——
I will not put up with catty remarks from that person. I will not put up with those catty remarks.
That is a sexist adjective.
What did he say?
Those are catty remarks about posturing. I did nothing of the sort.
How dare the Senator.
How dare you.
How dare you, come on.
We might avoid this if all the replies were addressed through the Chair and not to individual Senators.
I served in this House for two six-month periods with Seamus Mallon and Bríd Rodgers and many other distinguished names have been here through the past two decades who successive Taoisigh have asked to serve in this House. They have served with great dignity and understanding and we have learned much from their presence. That is the value of this House. We are well served by Senator Maurice Hayes.
Hear, hear.
When he speaks in this House he is remarkable because he gives us an insight into matters of which we would never know.
Cherry-picking is the issue.
Sorry, how dare you.
Order, please.
The Leader is misinterpreting me.
The Leader to reply without interruption, please.
I have to set it in context.
The Leader's own context.
The Taoiseach is minded and concerned that he would appoint as Senators persons from all the different political backgrounds by means of a constitutional amendment and not at random. He wishes that it be formalised in a formula which would ensure that different political voices would be heard in this House. I think that is a very good idea and it has been embraced by different Taoisigh of all persuasions down through the years.
This is not the issue; cherry-picking is the issue.
No, the cherry-pickers are all over on the other side.
Yes, indeed.
Order, please. The Leader without interruption.
I must set out the background to this. I think it is a remarkably good idea. The next thing Members will ask is when did I know. The Taoiseach spoke to me on Tuesday night. He told me he was very keen to have a formal arrangement for different political voices from different political backgrounds here in this House.
Dictator.
Order, please.
I cannot call that cherry-picking because it is a very good idea and one which should be embraced by all sides of the House.
No reform of the Seanad bar that.
There is reform of the Seanad.
Senator Hayes, please let the Leader reply.
The Senator insists on continuing. It is rather difficult for the Cathaoirleach. On reform of the Seanad, the Senator knows the committee is being set up and I have spoken to him but I will be more careful in the future.
I do not call that cherry-picking; I call it a good forward-looking step to embrace different backgrounds in this House. I do not call it cherry-picking; I call it an excellent move. There is a package and a committee has been set up to deal with it and the Senator knows that.
A whole package?
Please, Senator O'Rourke, through the Chair.
Yes, exactly.
I ask the Leader to speak through the Chair and not to be provoked by interruptions.
Exactly. The Senator just wants his own way.
Senator Norris asked that the full terms be included in the debate. I wish to inform the House that we have gone to extraordinary lengths and we hope to have the Taoiseach here if the time issue can be resolved.
Senator Norris also referred to the report on the bullying of gay students and spoke about the doctor who told him of the experience. I read about it in the Irish Independent this morning. I agree that literature dealing with various sexual mores should be discussed in the classroom. The world is made up of all sorts of different people and it would be very helpful if young people knew that from an early age. As the Senator observed, boys’ secondary schools adopt the wrong measures.
Senator McDowell asked for a debate on Northern Ireland. He said there was a need for clarity and I agree with him that people have faith in the process.
Senator Dardis asked if the IRA will give up criminality. I was very struck by the language used by the Tánaiste on Seán O'Rourke's programme last Sunday night. She used the word "criminality" quite clearly so it is not a new word which has just now emerged in the lexicon. Senator Dardis referred to the surveillance of Members of the Houses and I agree with him that it is entirely wrong. He said there were several unpalatable things which we will all have to swallow and I agree with him.
Senator Finucane was very passionate in his contribution. He has right on his side. It is a national as well as a local issue.
Senator Mansergh stated that we are close to agreement and should not draw back. He is correct that we need to show a degree of discipline in discussing the matter. We must also keep the objective firmly in mind and avoid clouding the issue.
Senator Henry asked a question concerning Committee Stage of the Health Bill. I hope the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children will come before the House as it will allow us to raise the issue. The Senator also called for a debate on bullying in schools, an issue also raised in recent days by Senator Glynn.
Senator Hanafin referred to the telecommunications regulator and noted the need for a proper communications strategy. SenatorCummins referred to issues which have been emerging. The Taoiseach's statement concerning Detective Garda Jerry McCabe, which gave rise to much ire on the part of his widow, Mrs. McCabe, was very public.
That is not the issue I raised. I referred to those who are on the run.
I am coming to that. A document issued last autumn during the talks in Leeds Castle fully addressed the issue of those who are on the run.
I agree with Senator Ó Murchú that a vacuum is dangerous. He also stated that, as part of Seanad reform, Senators would be honoured to be joined by people from diverse political persuasions. Senator Quinn referred to the need for a debate and called for the decommissioning, if I may use that word, of one cent and two cent coins. That would lighten our pockets. I have jars of these coins all over the place.
While I do not mean to be patronising, I admire the manner in which Senator Bradford spoke. He spoke generally and said we should stop point-scoring. I fully agree with his comments which will not help his popularity in the Fine Gael Party.
The phrase used by the Leader was unnecessary.
Is the Leader scoring points?
She is patronising the Senator.
We are steps away from peace and should be steady and mature in what we say.
The Leader should lead by example.
Exactly.
Allow the Leader to speak without interruption.
Senator Ross referred to the need for a debate. He also said that one of the strengths of the House is its ability to embrace different viewpoints and people from diverse backgrounds.
Senator Bannon called for a debate on Northern Ireland. He also requested that the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Parlon, come before the House to debate the five remaining culverts on the Royal Canal. Senator Browne referred to the Health Bill.