Donie Cassidy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Order of Business is No. a1 on the Supplementary Order Paper and Nos. 1 and 2 on the Order Paper. No. a1, allocation of time motion setting out the arrangements for the debate on No. 1 and No. 2, motion re earlier signature, shall be taken without debate. No. 2 is the Anglo Irish Bank Corporation Bill 2009, on which it is proposed spokespersons may speak for ten minutes and all other Senators five minutes. Senators may share time. Second Stage shall conclude at 9.20 p.m. and remaining Stages by 11 p.m.

Frances Fitzgerald (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I strenuously oppose the suggestions made by the Leader of the House.

Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Hear, hear.

Frances Fitzgerald (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I oppose the decision of the Government to rush the Bill through both Houses of the Oireachtas today. Having watched the proceedings in the other House, it is clear that adequate time was not allocated for a discussion on the Bill or the many amendments tabled thereto.

Nicky McFadden (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Hear, hear.

Frances Fitzgerald (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We are expected to agree to these procedures, despite the fact that the Bill was ready a number of days ago when the House could have been recalled to discuss it. It is outrageous that we are expected to deal with it in a couple of hours. The House should have been meeting for the past few weeks to discuss not alone the banking sector but also the state of the economy, in its broadest terms, and other items to which I referred, including national issues relating to health and education services, in particular the appalling situation in accident and emergency departments, and the cutbacks in transport, as well as international issues which required debate and comment in the House.

It is being suggested that we deal today with this important legislation which was only published this morning. The Dáil did not have adequate time to discuss the Bill, the implications of which we are all aware. People are outraged and they want answers to a series of questions about it, the most important being: who are we bailing out? They appreciate, however, that it is important that we deal with the matter in a constructive manner in terms of the economy, which is what we on this side of the House want to do. Nonetheless, we must have in place proper procedures and adequate time to do so. We must get answers to the many questions the public is asking.

We are all aware of the meeting which took place last week about Anglo Irish Bank. People all around the country, including many elderly persons, want to know what will happen to their shares. They are outraged at the lack of regulation of institutions by authority. We have serious questions to ask about all of this. For these reasons, I oppose the Order of Business as suggested. This is not good parliamentary procedure.

Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is shocking.

Frances Fitzgerald (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is a misuse of Parliament. We spent a number of hours today in the Mansion House speaking about the importance of parliamentary procedure. It is about time we lived up to what was said there today, that we made this House and the Dáil relevant, that real debates took place in this House and that adequate time was provided to deal with events in real time, not weeks afterwards. For these reasons, I oppose the proposals made.

Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Rushed legislation is bad legislation.

Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I agree completely with the points made by Senator Fitzgerald. There is a sense of déjÀ vu for me and some of my colleagues. I recall that previously there was a special sitting of the House to bail out Goodman. On this occasion the House has been recalled to bail out the banks. I want to be absolutely clear about the reason I oppose the allocation of time. I am not politicking here. The Bill is the legislation, and we shall deal with it. However, the reality is that people are talking about a national approach to the problem, some type of consensual approach within adversarial politics. It is believed that people should pull together to move forward matters. It is appalling that this is the third initiative that has been taken without any serious consultation with the Opposition parties, quite apart from the Independents. I find it disturbing that people such as Deputies Joan Burton, Richard Bruton and other parliamentarians have not been consulted. They have offered serious views on this and are not trying to damage the Government or the economy but rather to engage with it.

It is for that reason I oppose the allocation of time. Members of the public are asking how we as politicians do our business. The Government is rushing this legislation through the Oireachtas, intent on processing it in a couple of hours. No attempt is being made to allow people to engage, buy in, be part of and share a decision making process. It is not good business or politics. It is not good for the country and neither is it good for the political process. Whatever the Bill's worth — we shall discuss that later — this is an extraordinarily bad beginning. I said the same here on 30 September, and no lessons have been learned. Matters have been dumped on people. I said the same again two months later with the launch of the national plan. I said it was appalling that the Houses of the Oireachtas were not being presented with the national programme that was being spelt out to society by the Government on a particular afternoon, with nothing happening in either House.

If someone can explain where this is leading and why it is a good way to do business, I am prepared to listen. The Leader will know that I have not been slow to co-operate on issues when that is needed. If there is a national need to get something done, there will be plenty of co-operation. What we are doing here gives a really bad impression to the outside world. It is contemptuous of the political process, gives offence to the people who elected us and is a very poor way to begin dealing with an extraordinarily difficult crisis, at a time when the world is watching Ireland, among other places, to see how we do our business. At a time when we are trying to inspire confidence, all the Government is giving us are reasons to oppose and fight a civil war among ourselves. It does not work this way and neither should it. There is no need to conduct business in this way and the restriction on time does not help matters.

I would support the Government if people started to speak out of line, took pot shots and made political points and one-liners for the sake of media coverage. Senator Frances Fitzgerald is correct. I know the Cathaoirleach cannot involve himself in this debate and that it is up to ourselves to do it. We have communicated our views in an informal manner to the Leader of the House. It is important to say on the record that many of us here would like to be part of the decision, good or bad, that the Government is taking. We would like to make known our views, be able to amend the Government's proposals and take the good or bad that arises later. We are ready to take the decision and to stand by it. It will be good for people who sometimes play adverserial politics and argue against everything, while taking responsibility for nothing. To put it another way, people should be made get involved in the decision, to buy into the outcome and to take the fallout afterwards. When people ask what the Government is doing, I cannot say who is making the plans within the Administration. It is fine having civil servants drawing up the legislation, but who is actually planning for the politics of Government? I do not understand it.

Liam Twomey (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I fully support everything Senators O'Toole and Fitzgerald have said to the effect that it is ironic that on the 90th anniversary of the First Dáil all major announcements by Government are being made in Dublin Castle. It seems the views of those meeting in Dublin Castle count for more from the viewpoint of the public than those of the elected representatives of the Oireachtas. That is the type of insult being given to this House by this type of behaviour.

Donie Cassidy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I want to assure the House that I always have been consistent as regards the allocation of time necessary for Members to express their views. This is a special sitting of the House, called to discuss emergency legislation. The time allocated in the Seanad is the very same as that allocated in the Dáil. I know it may not be enough for many Members, but there are 166 Deputies in the Dáil——

Liam Twomey (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is no excuse.

Donie Cassidy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

——and 60 in the Seanad.

Liam Twomey (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It does not matter.

Donie Cassidy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Having said that, I will propose in the House on Tuesday next that we allocate all afternoon, all evening and all night for discussion of all matters of concern that would have been allowed by the Appropriation Bill, which Members agreed without debate just before the Christmas recess. I will agree with the leaders the allocation of time required for Senators to make their contributions. Irrespective of the time required, I make a commitment to the House to propose and agree that allocation on the Order of Business nextTuesday.

Liam Twomey (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is legislation, it has nothing to do with statements.