It is proposed to take Nos. 1, 2 and 3 today. Because of the very tight schedule of the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, who wishes to participate in the debate on item No. 3, it is proposed to take Private Members' Time from 4 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. instead of the more usual time of 6.30 p.m. to 8 p.m. Accordingly, we will commence with Nos. 1 and 2 and at 4 o'clock we will take up No. 3 until 5.30 p.m. At 6.30 p.m. we will resume Government business. I might say, for the information of Senators, that it is proposed that the House will sit next week. Next week, we will be taking items Nos, 4, 5 and 6 on the Order Paper today and, in addition, a small Bill, the European Communities (Supplementary Funding) Bill, which is necessary because of the settlement of the budget problem in the EC.
Order of Business.
On the Order of Business, since No. 3 is a motion that has become increasingly more important over the past number of weeks, would it be possible for time for this debate to be extended? We have from 4 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. today. The Minister, perhaps, will take a half hour. I believe he is coming in today. But in view of some of the items mentioned in the motion it could give us the only opportunity we might have in the near future to discuss the implications of the food problems and where aid should go. It is a motion that I should like to see extended far beyond the usual three hours.
On the Order of Business, I want to express concern about legislation which this House passed some time ago, the Funds of Suitors Bill. To my knowledge, the terms of that legislation have not been carried out. It is not a matter for me to make representations to the Ministers; it is a matter for the whole House.
It is not on the Order of Business, anyway, Senator.
Could the Cathaoirleach assist me so that this House might express its concern that the terms of the Funds of Suitors Bill, referring to Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann have not been complied with? In the process of legislation no strings were attached to the allocation of these funds. I am rather disappointed.
I will discuss it with you afterwards, but you can deal with it in the ordinary way by putting down a motion.
You would imagine that passing legislation in this House would be sufficient.
I rise to support Senator Lanigan's request that more time be given for the motion put down in the names of the Labour Senators on development aid, and in particular referring to the famine in African countries. I agree with him that this is an extremely important motion and that it would be desirable that we have additional time, if possible, to discuss it. I would welcome that. The time fixed is 4 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. today and it is proposed that we break from 5.30 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. I suggest — although I am not in favour of this as a general proposition — that we might sit through the break. It might even be an appropriate thing on the particular terms of this motion to sit through the break and to continue the discussion on this motion from 4 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. That would give further time today and it could still be carried over to the next day.
On the Order of Business, I wonder if the Cathaoirleach could advise me as to the way in which I can raise the appointment of the Minister for Education's brother-in-law, Brian Hussey, to the committee advising on forestry, due to the fact that he has a vested interest, representing the banking institutions of this country on that committee.
I will discuss it with you when I leave the Chair.
I would be very supportive of any measures that would facilitate the reasonable request that we get more time for debating this motion. My main reason for this is that mention had been made of the public interest which arises, for example, from the food aid aspect, but the motion refers to the whole question of the structure of a development aid policy, which is a broader context than the food aid one. Therefore, I would certainly support any way in which more time could be given to the motion, including the way suggested by Senator Robinson.
I would like to support this very reasonable request. Whether this is done during the tea hour this evening or carried on until next week is irrelevant, but one or the other should be agreed upon. In the debate on Building on Reality many of us had not the opportunity to speak. The House should have taken into account the large number of Senators who wished to make a contribution. Because the Order of Business suggests that it should finish at a certain time, that is done. We should be fair.
The House agreed.
I understand, but the House did not take cognisance of the fact that people had contributions to make and wanted to make them. I was next on the list and I was very disappointed that I could not make my simple contribution on an allegedly important document, particularly taking into account the propaganda that the Government are now engaging in throughout the country in bringing certain Ministers——
Senator, you are out of order.
Ministers are being appointed to philosophise on it. In Kells next week they are bringing all the health boards together to tell them that they are going to make further cuts than those requested in their budgets. I want to make a point that I think is relevant. When I did not get a chance to make it last week, I am entitled to make it this week.
I will have to ask you to resume your seat.
The people will see through the old sham, anyway, and the masquerading.
In regard to the question of giving additional time to this motion, it is very important that in this House we should distinguish between Private Members' Time and Government time. The position is that I had agreed with the Minister of State to come in here for a general debate on overseas development aid. That debate would have been taken in Government time. The extent of the speeches would not have been limited. The extent of the debate would not have been limited.
When this motion was put down in Private Members' Time and chosen as a priority motion by the Labour group, a difficulty arose. I considered the question of whether the two should be debated together but I considered that it might appear that a Private Members' motion was being taken over by a Government motion and that that would be a bad precedent. Accordingly, I asked the Minister of State if he would postpone until after Christmas the matter of a general debate on overseas development aid. On the last occasion on which we had a Private Members' motion there was an urging that the topic was of such importance that we should extend the time beyond the normal three hours. Here we are finding ourselves with the same request.
In the present Seanad we have had more time devoted to Private Members' business than I can remember in my period in this House of over 20 years and we should not allow ourselves to develop the practice that we should frequently decide that the time should be extended. We will end up in chaos if we do that.
This problme is one of importance and I suggest that we should debate it as a Private Members' motion in the ordinary way and that we should, very early in the New Year, have a Government motion which will be completely broad in scope and in which we can take up the whole question of our ODA policy. I do not promise we will have that debate in January, but certainly I would hope that it could be held before the end of February.
I feel that the Leader of the House has taken a reasonable stand on this. He has given a guarantee that we will have a general debate in the very near future on overall development aid policy. Could he guarantee that next week we will have a motion on development in the European Communities? On this motion we could take in many of the issues that are in the Private Members' motion or, if we want to extend the debate to developments or non-developments in the European Communities, we could develop the theme right along the line. Can we take it that we will have an early debate on overall development aid programmes? It is about time we had a debate on the report — developments since January 1984.
It is said that nothing is certain except death and taxes. Anyone who has ever been concerned with Seanad business will know that it can shift from time to time. As of now, it is my firm intention for my deputy to stand here next week — as I will not be here — and propose that we have a debate in Government time which will be open-ended and that we will take, not only the general motion which is No. 4, but we will take with it the motions in regard to the super-levy and the fisheries policy based on the joint committee reports, that is, Nos. 5 and 6. Unless the Chair is unduly restrictive in regard to the Private Members' debate that is going on and the projected general debate, I should imagine the Senators would be entitled to talk about the Community's development policy.
Is the order of business agreed?
I have not agreed to it. Before you agree the Order of Business, as a matter of grave urgency, in view of the recent reports in the British press and media which by implication were deliberately set to degrade and demoralise our Garda and security forces, I feel strongly that this House should call on our Government, as a mark of protest, to withdraw their forces from the Border where it is costing millions of pounds a year to maintain a Border artificially imposed upon the people of this country.
Please, Senator.
In excess of £1 million a day. It would put roofs on a few schools.