Debating House procedures
Senator Quinn seconds the call to debate proposed changes to the Seanad’s Standing Orders rather than taking them without debate.
I second Senator David Norris's motion. Truthfully, every time I read the words "without debate", I shiver. What are we doing here if we are going to take things without debate? I can understand the need for it sometimes when certain regulations are coming through. However, in this case it is a motion on the report of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges on the amendment of Standing Orders 90 and 105 and the adoption of new Standing Orders 108A to 108E, inclusive, and a Schedule to Standing Orders.
That seems to relate to this House and is the sort of issue that we should be debating. I urge the Deputy Leader to accept Senator David Norris's proposal that we debate it today.
One of our concerns during the years has been the length of time that it takes for regulations to be implemented under legislation that we pass. The Seanad passed the Construction Contracts Act 2013 just ten hours before the new Government took office five years ago. Although I will not say nothing has happened, the Act has not been commenced since. Yesterday, I learned that it would be commenced within the coming months. At least we are getting somewhere with it, but I cannot get over how long it takes to get things done.
I wish to address Senator Mark Daly's concerns about rural Ireland and Senator Michael Mullins's reference to post offices. There are measures that we could take to ensure rural Ireland survives. Not all of them would cost money but some would. If rural Ireland is to survive and thrive in the years ahead, we must do something. We have the answer.
I wish to raise an issue that I mentioned previously. It concerns legislation being introduced across Europe to tackle ISIS killers who are returning to Europe after slaughtering people in Syria. They were welcomed into a number of countries, but most European nations have now introduced legislation to ensure judges can debar such persons and remove their citizenships. We do not have that ability, but we should. Austria and Italy have strong legislation. If we are not careful, we will almost end up welcoming people who are returning to, or coming to, Europe having killed for ISIS. We could do something about this. We should at least give judges the right to remove people's passports, with which we have been generous in the past.