Seanad debates
Thursday, 17 October 2002
Order of Business.
10:30 am
Mary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank the Cathaoirleach for his cloak of comfort. The Order of Business is Nos. 1 to 13, inclusive, motions re the establishment of joint committees, which will be taken together for the purposes of debate; and No. 14, Digital Hub Development Agency Bill, 2002 – 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 15 minutes. I notice and it is fair that Senators receive some latitude but it is better where a Bill is concerned to lay down time limits.
Brian Hayes (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I agree with the Order of Business and do not oppose it. I wish to raise one matter and, through the House, to speak to the country concerning the referendum this Saturday. Last weekend, the Serbian presidential election was declared null and void because fewer than 50% of the people turned out to vote. This Saturday, I remind the public that we all have a responsibility to vote either one way or the other. Does the Leader agree that there is an historic opportunity in the vote this Saturday, for the people to exercise their democratic franchise in a way which will ensure Ireland continues to have influence in Europe and that we open up the European Union to the new, emerging democracies in central and eastern Europe? In that context, does the Leader also agree that this Saturday's vote is crucially important to the future of the country and Europe?
Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I take a different view from that of the Cathaoirleach regarding the Order of the Business, but that is not to challenge his ruling which I accept. No Standing Orders exist to restrict the Order of Business to questions on the day's business. I have had to take the trouble over the years to go back over the history of the House to its foundation and I assure Members that I can find instances of speeches on the Order of Business lasting up to 45 minutes. I do not suggest we should go down that road, but whereas it is important we conduct our business with a certain facility and as efficiently as possible—
Rory Kiely (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I do not know what history has to do with my rulings, but they are the rulings of the Chair.
Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is my belief that, if someone says something often enough, it can almost become accepted as law. While I agree with the Cathaoirleach on the need for us to be efficient on the Order of Business, it is the basis on which Members discuss what business should be taken and whereby they can ask for it to be today even if they mean it to be tomorrow. That has always been the way. In fairness to people on the Opposition side of the House, the Leader in her response yesterday invited interruption on a number of occasions.
I wish to raise two issues regarding the Order of Business and Bills before and coming before the House. The Government Whips for both Houses have circulated a list of legislation and I have an issue in this regard which requires clarification. I do not expect the Leader or the Cathaoirleach to have the answer now. The list refers to a Disability Bill which is to be published in 2003 and also, under the heading of Bills expected to be published before the start of the Dáil session or up to the Christmas recess, to an Education for Persons with Disabilities Bill. I will not trouble the House with what it sets out to do.
I remind the House, especially the 31 Members who were Members of the previous Seanad, that we went to a great deal of trouble some months ago to pass another Education for Persons with Disabilities Bill. It was passed by the House and, if it were to be restored, should be sent to the other House. It appears not to have been restored and has lapsed in the middle. Perhaps it is a Government decision that it wants to hear no more about the Bill, which was quite controversial at times, although it was improved significantly in the House. Will the Leader clarify the position? This is a serious Bill and one which has had much media and public interest and in which the disabilities groups have an interest.
Another issue is that of committees. I have a major problem with the decision being handed down to us from another place as to the number of Senators who should participate in committees. It appears there was no discussion in the House or negotiation with it about the reason the number of members of joint committees was reduced. The numbers have been reduced for both Houses and there may be a good reason for doing that, but it has happened without discussion. In terms of this House, it reduces the participation in joint committees from five to four members. I accept that is pro rata with the other House, but that is not my argument. Many new Senators have a great deal of interest in more than one issue and their chance for participation has been reduced. The decision is not good for that reason. Is there a way an amendment can be considered to ensure greater participation on some committees at least? It cannot be good to have reduced participation at a particular time when we are trying to get people more involved in the work of the Seanad and when there are so many new people who could contribute to many new committees.
I would like to hear support from Senator Brian Hayes and others for my viewpoint, which I have raised ad nauseam in this House, in the Forum for Europe and in every other place, that we should introduce a constitutional amendment to ensure that only referenda that have a turnout above a certain percentage would be taken into consideration. It is time we did that and took it seriously.
Derek McDowell (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I have a brief response to Senator O'Toole's proposal. Does it not open the appalling vista that what happened in Yugoslavia could happen here? Something could be defeated simply by urging a certain number of people not to turn up and assuming the support of many other people who might have turned up in different circumstances. There is an argument there.
I have two issues on the Order of Business. It is now four or five months since the benchmarking commission set up by the previous Government reported. It was an interesting and detailed report. Does the Leader agree with me that there is no sense in setting up a commission of that kind with the remit that it had if the Government does not accept the recommendation and has not a serious intent to carry it through? I am sure she will be aware of recent disquiet expressed in relation to the report and concerns expressed by the Minister for Finance and some of his officials about the cost of it. In the context of the forthcoming recommencement of discussions and negotiations about a follow on agreement to the PPF, will the Leader arrange for a debate in this House on that and related issues?
Cathain a mbeidh an Bille um chomhionannas Gaeilge á fhoilsiú ag an Rialtas. Tá an Bille seo geallta ag an Rialtas le fada an lá agus ba mhaith liom go n-inseodh an Ceannaire dúinn cathain a fhoilseofar é? An bhfuil sé ar intinn ag an Rialtas an Bille a thionscnú sa Teach seo?
Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I support what Senator Brian Hayes has said about the forthcoming referendum and I also very much support the timely views expressed by Senator O'Toole. It is not right that things should be decided for this House, as he put it, in another place. He made a number of points very well.
Shane Ross (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is unusual and it will not happen again, but I endorse what Senator McDowell had to say.
Derek McDowell (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It disturbs me as much as it does the Senator.
Shane Ross (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is timely that we should have a debate on benchmarking.
Shane Ross (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I support a debate, because as my colleague the ATM man on the left would say, this issue will be very contentious. Realistically, benchmarking awards cannot and will not be paid to anybody and that includes for Members of this House. Let us not go along a blind alley pretending that it will be paid. It will not be paid and the sooner the better we as Members of this House debate it and inform the public about the reality and not mislead them into believing that it will be paid.
Feargal Quinn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Over the past few months a number of State reports have been published and there is a danger that some State bodies publish reports during the time when the Oireachtas is not in session so that they do not get the requisite attention. Over the years, I have asked for almost all State body reports to be published within a short period after the end of their financial year. There is a danger that they will become historical documents. Could we allocate time every week or two weeks to looking at these reports promptly before they become historical documents? Quite often they are published and a year passes before they are reviewed even by a committee.
Three reports were published recently to which we should allocate time in the near future. They are the Green Paper on basic income, the report of the forum on fluoridation and the review of Garda performance and accountability. It would be worthwhile for this House to debate those three reports in the near future.
Can the Leader tell us when the penalty points system will be introduced? The carnage on the roads continues. We passed the legislation here last year. We understood it would come in as quickly as possible, but we heard the computers were not ready for it and it would not happen. Then we heard it would take place without computerisation. I would like to know when it will happen because it is an essential step in reducing road carnage.
Martin Mansergh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I support the call for a debate on the benchmarking report. It is part of social partnership arrangements and, contrary to what Senator Ross says, the notion that the Government will simply repudiate the benchmarking report is totally wide of the mark. Obviously how it will be implemented will be part of the social partnership negotiations.
Michael Finucane (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
There was a previous request for the Minister for Finance to come to the House. It would be worth having him here to clarify certain things that are happening. In recent times economists have been mystified that our income tax take has reduced by so much. They have now discovered that to finance the special savings investment scheme, he has been top-slicing €500 million from income tax receipts and into that fund. He is now almost akin to the three card trick man outside Listowel races. He should clarify for the House what is happening with the finances.
Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I support the proposal of Senator Quinn about documents laid before the House, particularly reports of State organisations. He is quite correct in saying the fluoridation report has been published and left aside and there has been no great debate on it. We could allow time on Thursday evenings or Friday mornings without a division and the chief executive or whoever is responsible for an organisation could be brought before this House to explain the report and allow us to exchange views with him or her.
For far too long vitally important documents have been laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas but not discussed. The Dáil has very little time to debate those issues and the Seanad will also be very busy, but it would be worthwhile every two or three weeks to go through every report that we feel is appropriate for further discussion. I ask that the Leader and the whips discuss this matter.
Labhrás Ó Murchú (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I ask the Leader for a debate on tourism at an early date. There have been major challenges for the industry this year and recent reports suggest it is necessary to have a root and branch consideration of what needs to be done. It will not be quite as easy in the coming year. It will take us a couple of years to recover, but the important thing about tourism is that even the smallest areas of the country can benefit from it. Sometimes we have debates right in the middle of the season. Now is the time and perhaps the appropriate Minister might come in to see if there is some way to rally the whole industry for next year's season.
Mary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
In answer to the leader of Fine Gael, the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Brian Hayes, I agree that when I heard what they had done in Serbia, which is clearly a feature of life there, I immediately thought how good it would be here. If we were to do it retrospectively, how many of us would get in?
Derek McDowell (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
On a point of order, for the sake of clarity, as I understand it, the term "Leader of the Opposition" is one that is common to a foreign parliament. It is not common in these Houses. While Senator Hayes is the leader of the Fine Gael Party in the House, I do not think Leader of the Opposition is an appropriate title.
Rory Kiely (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That is not a point of order and is not relevant to the Order of Business.
Brian Hayes (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The deputy leader of the Labour Party recognises it.
Rory Kiely (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Leader to reply without interruption.
Mary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We all would like more people to go to the polls when elections are called. I accept the point made by the leader of the Labour Party – sorry, he is not the leader.
Mary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I knew that. I refer to the point made by the deputy leader of the Labour Party. The Italian Constitution requires a certain percentage of the population to turn out for a referendum. I share the view that people should come out in large numbers next Saturday. If they do not they will have only themselves to blame.
Senator O'Toole referred to the Chair's unique position regarding the Order of Business and mentioned a Member speaking for 45 minutes on the Order of Business.
Mary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That will not be my way. Senator O'Toole said that my manner invited interruptions. I regret that as I do not mean to do so and it makes my job harder. I promise to curb that instinct.
Senator O'Toole referred to the two disabilities Bills – one is a general disabilities Bill while the other is an education Bill for those with disabilities. I do not know where the latter has gone, though I understand it was amended usefully in the Seanad. I will find out and clarify the position. Senator O'Toole also referred to the committees, as did other Members, and he regretted the drop in membership from 15 to 11 in the Dáil and from five to four in the Seanad. That was imposed on us by the other House.
Senator McDowell called for a debate on benchmarking and Senator Ross, who clearly holds a different view, brought up the same matter. Senator Mansergh explained its position within the social process regarding trade unions and employers. I agree that we should have a debate on this and we will invite the Minister for Finance to the House for that debate. Senator McDowell also asked about Bille na Gaeilge. I am not sure if it is here or in the Dáil but I will inquire about it.
Senator Coghlan asked if we would debate the Flood report. We have sought such a debate. He also asked yesterday about the difference between the Criminal Assets Bureau and the corruption assets bureau, as well as the difference between the prior legislation and what is proposed now. I said we would be able to debate the matter when we had the legislation but that Bill has not yet been printed.
Senators Quinn and Leyden referred to reports. I agree with them that it should be a fortnightly if not weekly practice to allocate time to very important reports. These are published with plenty of facts and glossy photographs but then we discard them or send them to someone who is interested in the topic concerned. The Seanad could provide a useful forum for debating such reports in allocated time. Those with a specific interest in a particular report could then discuss it and I agree with Senator Leyden that we could invite the chairman or chief executive involved to speak about it. There are joint committees for dealing with these issues but a report is different – it is a specific account of how a firm or agency has operated for the past 12 months. Such debates would be a welcome addition to the business of the House.
Senator Finucane called for a debate with the Minister for Finance on various financial matters, while Senator Ó Murchú called for a debate on tourism, which would be very useful. There is no point in having a tourism debate next spring when the numbers have or have not booked to come. A tourism debate would be very timely now and it is something we will put to the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism.
Derek McDowell (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
On a point of order, I did not want to interrupt the Leader but she said something I did not understand.
Rory Kiely (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Senator cannot raise an issue now. The Leader has replied.
Derek McDowell (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Out of courtesy I did not want to interrupt her.
Rory Kiely (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Leader has replied. Is the Order of Business agreed?
Derek McDowell (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
She said she has sought a debate on the Flood report.
Derek McDowell (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Does that mean time will be allocated for such a debate?
Mary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
No, because I have not heard back.
Order of Business agreed to.