The Order of Business today is item No. 2, continuation of Committee Stage of the Child Care Bill to 4 p.m. My understanding is that this would be sufficient time to complete the Committee Stage. From 4 p.m. to 4.45 p.m. it is proposed to have a sos to allow amendments to be considered for Report Stage and to circulate them. From 4.45 p.m. to 6 p.m. we will continue with Report Stage of the Bill. There will be a sos from 6 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. and at 6.30 p.m. we resume the second portion of the Fianna Fáil motion on tourism, the Private Members' motion. From 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. we will take item No. 3, the University of Limerick (Dissolution of Thomond College) Bill, 1991.
Order of Business.
I would like to ask the Leader of the House whether he can report on progress in relation to the foreign affairs committee that has been promised on several occasions and indeed promised by the Taoiseach himself. There are many issues we would like to debate in this House — they come up regularly on the Order of Business by way of expressing our frustration at our lack of input into them — the ongoing democratic deficit that is growing between the decision-making process in Europe generally, particularly with political union, and the whole security issue yet to be thoroughly debated by this House, the issue of the annual price talks and the lack of input by this House and the debate on the income crisis in farming generally. Again, with the democratic deficit, the decisions are being made in Brussels and we are not having any input into them.
This is a question to the Leader of the House. Could we please have a forum through which we can debate all these issues — the ODA issue, both governmental and non-governmental help to the countries in crisis, Bangladesh, Africa, and we all have our different areas. Senators on all sides raise issues that should properly be dealt with at an all party foreign affairs committee. I would like to ask the Leader if, without pushing it aside or saying he has no information, he could inform this House as to the progress on this committee that has been promised by the Taoisach. Could he assure this House their will be senatorial representation on this committee when it is established?
It is worthwhile recalling last week's Order of Business in the light of what Senator Doyle has just said and also the need for more debate on issues. One way of approaching this would be to increase Private Members' time. We had come to a stage recently where we were very close to some sort of agreement on being able to take further motions in Private Members' time. I really feel it would take a lot of pressure from the Order of Business and it is something which I would appeal to the Leader of the House to respond to in a positive way. It seems it would solve many difficulties.
Could I also get some indication from the Leader of the House about Report Stage of the Environmental Protection Agency Bill? I am not pushed on this. If it is not ready, it is not ready; but I think we should have some indication. I believe it is not going to be ready for July. I have heard that it is, but I do not believe it is going to be. We would be better off to be told that and to know we are going to deal with it in August or September, or whenever we come back. I want to make it clear that I am not pushing. There were a huge number of areas where amendments had to be made, but I think we are entitled to have some indication as to when it will be taken.
It is nice to be back in the House again. Would the Leader of the House consider allowing us have a debate on the postal service? It is a matter that is being debated tonight in the other House, and was debated there last night. Quite clearly, it is a matter of immediate national concern judging by the huge crowd of postal workers who marched to Dáil Éireann. I ask the Leader of the House to facilitate us by allowing this House put on the record its position and the views of the Members, on the Government side and the Opposition side, in relation to this very important national issue, that is not just of an urban nature but very much of a rural nature as well.
May I also support Senator Doyle's request for information on the progress, or lack of progress, of the foreign affairs committee as was promised by the Taoiseach? It would provide us with a forum whereby we would be able to channel many of the requests that are made here for debates on a wide variety of international issues. That would be one way for us to try to deal with one area that has been causing a lot of trouble here.
That leads us on to the other point, which is, how can we best deal with topical issues? We still have not resolved that matter; it is coming up again and again and we have to address it. I ask the Leader of the House to take the initiative to see that more time is made available either in Private Members' time or in Adjournment time or more issues allowed to be debated so that we can deal with matters that are of current concern to the Members here.
I would like to endorse the view of Senator Doyle that at the earliest possible opportunity we should have a debate on European affairs. I specifically request the Leader of the House to consider regular debates and a regular monitoring of our performance in relation to 1992. I say this because we have had the NESC report, the ESRI and the Cecchini report, which all call into question our fitness for 1992. I am concerned that we are not monitoring this carefully enough and I appeal to the Leader of the House in the future ordering of business in the Seanad that on a periodic basis we have a debate on 1992, our preparation for it and the implications for this country.
I would like to support what Senator Doyle and other Senators have said about the desirability of setting up the foreign affairs committee. I would like to make the point that the Leader of the House on numerous occasions here has expressed his support for our views on that, that he believes it should be a joint committee and that Seanad Éireann should have its proper representation on the committee. I have no reason whatsoever to doubt his goodwill in this matter and that should be put on the record.
We should note, however, that in this connection all the evidence is that individual national parliaments in Europe are more and more putting pressure on their Governments in the ongoing developments of the talks towards European union and inter-governmental conferences. The whole move now in the Community is that national parliaments should monitor the march, if you like, to federal union and the inter-governmental conferences. It is appalling if we are going to be deficient in that. I, too, would be anxious to know honestly what the view of the Leader of the House is on the reason for this extraordinary delay or whether he has any comment to make on the bizarre interpretation that somehow it has to do with the falling out of old buddies. I am ready to believe anything at this stage and I will not elaborate on that statement.
I join in the request to the Leader of the House to make more time available, especially to deal with the European Community. We have seen this week a continuing fall in agricultural incomes. It is unfortunate we do not have an opportunity of debating or at least concentrating our minds on these problems that farmers are facing over the next few months.
I would like if the Leader of the House would indicate whether it would be possible to have an early debate in the Seanad to consider the new appeals system and the situation after the latest extension of the disadvantaged areas. From now on this is going to be a very important contribution to the viability of many thousands of farmers in this country and this House should have an input into it.
As my party's spokesman for Foreign Affairs, I, too, believe we should have an opportunity of an input into a foreign affairs committee. I ask the Leader of the House, in support of what Senator Doyle has said, if he would indicate whether we can have an early input into the formation of such a committee. It is important that the Oireachtas should be able to make a contribution and concentrate our thoughts on many of the areas with which our Ministers are dealing every day. Decisions are taken in our name and the democratic system is continually bypassed here time and time again. I would ask Senator Fallon if he will use his good offices to ensure that the House is represented on the proposed foreign affairs committee. Will he also give the House an opportunity of considering making a submission to the Government on the present situation and the huge disappointment of many thousands of farmers after the latest extension of the disadvantaged areas scheme?
On the Order of Business, I want to put on record that I am perfectly happy with the proposals the Leader has for dealing with the Child Care Bill today. Can I put on record — maybe it is slightly disorderly — the very positive response of the Minister to the debate in this House on Committee Stage of the Bill? One is more than happy to facilitate a Minister who is as positive in his response as that.
There are a couple of matters I would like to raise on the Order of Business. One is a small suggestion in the light of the problems we ran into the last day. I would hate us to end up with only a quarter of an hour left for Report Stage of the Child Care Bill and to feel at six o'clock this evening that we could not finish it, because, as you correctly pointed out the last day, it would be in breach of procedures. I would suggest that we do not timetable a sos, even though I am absolutely certain we will have one, so as to make sure that no procedural problem will prevent us from finishing the Bill today. That is only a suggestion and the Leader may respond as he wishes.
I agree with all of my colleagues on the need for a foreign affairs committee and I join in their request to the Leader for some clarification on the matter. I also ask my Fine Gael colleagues for clarification of newspaper reports that they were seeking only to have a minuscule number of Seanad Members on that committee. The number reported was three. Since I did not see a subsequent denial maybe they would find out for us, when the Leader is finding out about the Government's views, what Fine Gael's view is on Seanad representation on that committee, because three is a derisory representation of this House on such an important committee.
It was three from our party.
Fine Gael's aspirations to large numbers of seats, if anything is perhaps a little bit out of touch with reality at present. I am not running in the local elections so that will not be the answer.
On the issue of foreign affairs, it is time we had an open-ended, extensive and serious debate on the problem of famine in Africa. I do not mean a two hour symbolic wringing of hands; I mean a debate in which each of us has sufficient opportunity and time to deal with this issue and with the extraordinarily inadequate response of the international community to it. I propose, not in any disorderly fashion, to continue to raise this issue in this House not in any way claiming superiority but because I think it is an extraordinarily important issue. Probably it is the most important single critical issue facing the world and I appeal to the Leader to begin by allowing us a serious, open-ended and extensive debate on the problem of famine in Africa, because millions of people are going to die and it is our duty to do what we can to put pressure on the large world institutions, among them the EC, to produce the sort of response in the time-scale that it is necessary to do.
May I also, on the issue of foreign affairs, compliment Senator O'Reilly for raising the question of 1992? I see us hurtling down on this ideological skateboard into 1992 quite unaware that the Cecchini report, which everybody believes in, has been contradicted by the NESC report, which says the opposite to what Cecchini said. We are in for dreadful problems and the matter should be dealt with seriously.
Finally, Motion No. 47 on the Order Paper, in the names of my colleagues, Senator Ross and Senator Murphy, welcomes President De Klerk. May I invite them to take that motion off the Order Paper, given the appalling revelations in yesterday's London Independent about the connivance of the South African Government and certain black groups which are effectively conniving to murder other black South Africans? Of course, it has been denied but the facts are that the revelations are very damning and very convincing.
In view of a general consensus that suicide should be decriminalised and that emphasis should be placed on compassion and assistance and a Christian approach to it, and in view of the the need to bring the criminal law into conformity with the views and outlook of the present day, would the Leader of the House allow time for discussion of item No. 8, the Bill to decriminalise suicide?
I would like to support Senator Doyle on the matter of European affairs. One of the things about Europe 1992 is that it is like what Job says: "The thing I fear most has come upon me." That is the way we are going to be very shortly. For that reason I support totally the request that we should have an opportunity of expressing our views in a constructive way as part of a monitoring process.
On the question of the viability plan of An Post, I know there are difficulties procedurally with that. I am not going to press the point, but perhaps the Committee on Procedure and Privileges might examine tonight whether the Cathaoirleach has any discretion in the matter of whether a debate can be held on it.
On this morning's "Gay Byrne Show", Seán Barrett — the Trinity economist, not the Fine Gael TD — gave a lot of information about the abuses that have been discovered in the Comptroller and Auditor General's audits down through the years. This is not any one Government; this is many Governments during the years. Quite frankly, the reason I am putting the matter to the Leader of the House is simply because I do not think people should be afraid to be accountable. We should have an opportunity for a general debate on these reports and the abuses. After all, we are spending taxpayers' money and we rather than someone on the radio should be able to show that we are responsible and have accountability. Therefore, I ask that a series of those reports be put before the House for a general debate without decision.
The next matter is the Third World. Senator Ryan is quite correct there. The people of the Third World, if those who are talking about competition are correct, are going to be our customers in the long term. On the humanitarian side, what we are giving to the Third World is a pittance. We need to have another look at that and have another debate in the Seanad on how we could step up that contribution to the Third World.
There is no monopoly of interest on any one side of the House in relation to what is taking place outside of these shores, but, as a former emigrant, I have down through the years taken a particular interest in emigrant welfare and obviously have followed with great interest the debates — those of them that are made public — of the Anglo-Irish Parliamentary tier. I would like to ask the Leader of the House, in the context of what has gone before, whether there is any vehicle or whether he could explore either with the Government or within the Committee on Procedure and Privileges an opportunity for this House to debate the deliberations of the Anglo-Irish Parliamentary tier. We are indeed honoured to have representatives from both sides of the House sitting on this history-making committee——
Only those in parties.
(Interruptions.)
I was making the point that the House is well represented. Having said that, what is of more concern to me is that I, as a Member of this House, am excluded from discussing the debates which go on at the Anglo-Irish Parliamentary tier both here and in London. I know the valuable work they are doing is very relevant to this House. I am asking the Leader, as there seems to be an absence of a vehicle for debating the deliberations of that body, to give consideration to exploring the possibility of bringing some of their reports into this House — those that can be published in the public domain, because many of their deliberations are in camera— and specifically those dealing with emigrant welfare issues.
In view of the major crisis in farm incomes which is getting worse daily, of the discussions on the Common Agricultural Policy and of the crisis in the sheep industry, particularly with regard to the collapse of lamb and wool prices, will the Leader of the House give time for a debate on agriculture?
With reference to item No. 17 on the Supplementary Order Paper — it is critical of the Government but I do not wish to raise it in any controversial sense — about the repercussions of the European Court judgement on the question of homosexual relations, I would like to put a question to the Leader of the House, in view of the questions asked last week by Deputy McCartan in the Dáil and the answers he received, which was to confirm what the Minister told this House, that legislation would be introduced in the autumn. I take the Minister's bona fides in this absolutely but would the Leader find out now from the Minister whether it is intended to initiate this measure in this House? I am sure the Leader would agree with me that this would be a most appropriate Chamber in which to introduce it, first, in view of the considerable expertise of many Members of this House and of the calm and dispassionate debate that could be held here and it could then be passed to the lower House.
I would like to support what Senator Doyle said in regard to the foreign affairs committee. I also very much hope this will be confirmed by the Leader. I have asked questions on many occasions. On the Supplementary Order Paper, you will find a detailed motion in my name. It is an expediency motion; it does arise on the Order of Business. I took this in Private Members' time in the last session I am very anxious that there should be proper representation. A point was raised by Senator Mooney with regard to the Anglo-Irish Parliamentary tier. That gives great concern with regard to the foreign affairs committee because the Independent benches were deliberately and unscrupulously and, in my opinion, illegally and undemocratically excluded. We are the only representatives who have constituents in the North of Ireland and in the United Kingdom and it is absurd that we should be so disgracefully excluded.
(Interruptions.)
With regard to the rescue trust, there is a motion on the Order Paper, No. 54: "That Seanad Éireann expresses concern regarding the increasing use of torture by many regimes world wide, and commends the work of the rescue trust...". May I ask the Leader of the House to be aware that I have asked my representative to raise this matter at the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. I sought to secure a room for the briefing of Members of this House and was denied that, which seems an extraordinary denial of parliamentary privilege.
May I, finally, refer to Senator Neville's no doubt well-intentioned placing on the Order Paper of the Bill regarding suicides? It is an area that needs to be examined. I will be opposing this Bill vehemently because of the appalling provision that seeks to make a deadletter of the suicide of a person, and an active matter and a matter of criminal sanction with regard to anybody who assists somebody to commit suicide.
Will somebody indicate to Senator Norris that I wish to address him? The Senator is nowhere near relevancy in regard to the Order of Business. The Bill in question is not before the House.
But the Bill was referred to and you permitted Senator Neville to make an extended speech. I would like to point out that this is a highly dangerous Bill as currently framed because it criminalises something many people would have strong reservations about.
Senator I have pointed out to you that it is not relevant.
I am most grateful to you.
I, too, would like to support Senator Brendan Ryan's call for a debate on the situation in Africa. It is only when we see the awful scenes on our television screens that we react in a very generous way. All western countries and the EC have an obligation to try in some way to resolve the situation in the long term and I support the call for a debate on this issue.
I wish to raise a couple of matters on the Order of Business. First, perhaps the Leader of the House might state his intentions in relation to the taking of the University of Limerick (Dissolution of Thomond College) Bill. Secondly, in relation to legislation for next week and early July, Senator O'Toole mentioned one Bill and it might be an idea if the Leader of the House could communicate to us in the course of the next few days or so generally what legislation it is proposed to take over this period.
We know that there are difficulties with Ministers and their advisers coming back with legislation and it is not easy for spokespersons to be prepared. Thirdly, I understand the committee on crime is to be reconstituted. Is it the intention that Members of this House will serve on that committee? It certainly would be appropriate if they were given an opportunity to serve. I welcome the decision to reconstitute the committee. We will press for the quick implementation of matters mentioned yesterday in relation to assisting the victims of crime.
I support the call from Senator Ryan that we have a debate on the famine in Africa and the Third World generally. I had an experience recently which, with the Chair's permission, I would be glad to mention. Even though we have such splendid organisations as Concern, World Mercy, Gorta, Trócaire and various other organisations helping the Third World not enough money is collected or goes there. I had an experience recently where I was approached by a nun from a far distant place and she was looking for help. She was a doctor and wanted medical supplies. We brought her to the Department but she did not qualify under the rules that existed. To my great surprise, satisfaction and joy, I was told by the civil servant I was dealing with that, as civil servants, they had set up a special fund where so much was taken from their income, to meet projects such as this one which were worthy and worthwhile but still did not qualify for aid. I thank the Chair for giving me an opportunity to mention that. At times we all complain about the faceless men in the Departments but in this case the faceless men were doing more than people might think they would do for the Third World.
And the women, I presume.
If that is the best Senator Doyle can offer she is not going too well. I do not think she is going too well, anyway.
Senator Hanafin's contribution was significant and it shows the job there is yet to be done.
Of course, there is a job to be done. What is the possibility of having the Minister for Education, Deputy O'Rourke, here to deal with a debate on other subjects that might be included in the leaving certificate? I am prompted to raise this question because of something I read——
Sex education, maybe.
Is there any way the Chair can shut up that clown from interrupting every time anyone is speaking?
If any of the rest of us went on like that we would be thrown out.
I doubt it. Senator Hanafin has put a question to the Leader of the House. I consider him still to be in the process of putting the question.
I was prompted to raise this because of a report in the Irish Independent on 6 June 1991. Under the heading “Church anger over course”——
The Senator should stick to the question. I can see Members of the House becoming very irate with the Chair in the circumstances.
That never concerned the Chair too much before.
I am trying to be tolerant.
Yes, the Chair is and it is because he is tolerant that I know he will allow me to continue. It said:
Christian church leaders are angry with Education Minister Mary O'Rourke for not delivering on an assurance to include religion as a Leaving Certificate subject.
The Minister has ignored a plea for information from the Church of Ireland Archbishop of Dublin, Dr. Donald Caird——
A question, please.
——and a recent request from the Presbyterian Church, the General Synod of the Church was told in Dublin yesterday——
May I assume you are now giving him a fool's licence——
I repeatedly asked the Senator to put a question.
Why not insist?
As the Chair does with us.
The Senator is orderly.
I do not recall interrupting any speaker on this side or any other side. Is it what I say or what I represent?
I do not know, Senator, but if you could put the question it might help to resolve the matter.
I will continue with the quotation:
Rev. Terence McCaughey told delegates that the four main churches first approached the Department in the late 1970s to include religion as a subject.
In fairness I have to ask the Senator to put the question to the Leader of the House.
A discourtesy has been shown to these eminent churchmen of the Church of Ireland and the Methodist and Presbyterian Churches. It is most offensive. I ask the Leader of the House if the Minister for Education, Deputy O'Rourke, could come to the Seanad and deal with that subject. To insult or be discourteous or offensive in any way to those eminent Church leaders is something I find difficult to accept.
I wish to ask the Leader in waiting of the Fine Gael Party if she would commend the perceived good taste of the Fianna Fáil Members of the Oireachtas, given the recent newspaper article profiling that lady——
That has no bearing on the Order of Business.
Will the Leader of the House allow time for a debate on regional imbalance?——
In Cork, is it?
——given the fact that one-third of the population is in the Dublin region and the pressures that are on that area. The Government have already taken a decision to decentralise——
Distribution of members.
——2,000 jobs to the provinces with a further 1,750 on the way.
Has the Senator a question?
The question I have is that the programme of decentralisation is so important to the economic fabric——
That is not a question.
It is very much a question in the provinces and particularly in Cork, given the fact that 450 CSO jobs are to be transferred there.
A question for the Leader of the House, please.
There will be an input of £7 million into that city over the next number of years. It is vital. I ask, the Leader of the House to allow time for a debate on the imbalance of population, industry and commercialism during the period of this Seanad.
And the distribution of the Cabinet.
With regard to disadvantaged areas we saw recently a long and impressive list of areas that are to be included as disadvantaged. I would like to pose to the Leader a two-part question. What areas will be classified as severely disadvantaged? This is the kernel of the matter. The area that will be disadvantaged per se but not severely disadvantaged will not enjoy very much privilege or advantage. It behoves the Government to advise farmers——
The Senator is making a speech.
I am not. It behoves the Government to advise farmers when these areas will be——
I am of the opinion that the Senator is making a speech.
My question is simply——
Tell a story.
——when will the areas that are disadvantaged and their categories be known? When will payments be made in respect of these new areas? Will it be 1991 or 1992? There is much talk about disadvantaged areas but we need to discuss this matter and agriculture in general in the context of——
The Senator has made his point.
I have not. I am just beginning to make my point.
The Senator has made his point and has made a quite lengthy speech, no more than the rest.
I have one or two other points to make.
They must be in the form of questions.
When will the Leader of the House arrange for a meaningful and in-depth debate on agriculture, taking account of the very serious position that exists in the areas of milk, beef, lamb, etc. and tie that in with the EC, with GATT, the CAP——
A question, Senator, please.
When can we expect to have this debate? Last week I asked about a debate on health and the Leader replied that there was never a promise made about a debate on health. I accept that but when can we expect a debate on health which is a very serious subject for many people. It is vital——
I can let the Senator say no more. He will have to ask a question.
With regard to topical affairs, will the Leader say if it is possible to arrange for debates on such matters. We could monitor, on an ongoing basis, the affairs that are topical because something might not be urgent one week but it might become a very urgent matter a short time after that. Could we have some mechanism whereby debates on topical matters would be accommodated? With regard to the committee on foreign affairs, what progress is being made on that matter?
Is the Leader surprised to find me, a Dublin politician running in the local elections, supporting Senator O'Keeffe's plea for a debate on regional imbalance? This certainly will not get me any votes in the local elections in Dublin. I agree with Senator O'Keeffe. Centralisation in this country has gone much too far. We are the most centralised country in Europe. There is nothing in the recent local government Bill or any other legislation to suggest there is a trend in the opposite direction. Would the Leader of the House agree that we could have a debate not only on the disaster that it may cause in Senator O'Keeffe's area but also on the disaster that it is causing in our capital city where the quality of life is deteriorating considerably? Moving a few civil servants around the country is not decentralisation. We should have a debate on the matter.
A number of Senators, including Senator Doyle, raised the question of a foreign affairs committee. I can only repeat what I have said before: my information is that this committee is being formed. I have asked, and I am hopeful that there will be Seanad representation on that committee. A number of Senators asked for a debate, as did Senator Manning last week, on developments in the EC. There was some criticism of me in connection with that matter which was unfair. If one examines the record over the past number of months one will find that we had a number of debates on foreign affairs. We had a debate on the Middle East, on Sudan and we had a debate twice on the Gulf. The other House was clamouring for a second debate but they had only one. We had a debate on eastern Europe. We had a debate on agriculture twice and that has a clear EC dimension. If anything, I have been over-helpful in arranging for such debates.
Senator O'Toole queried the Order of Business, as did others, and asked about topical issues. I repeat what I said: if the rules are changed I will abide by them but I must live within the rules as they are. Senator Costello asked about the postal dispute. We were first into the race with a debate on that matter. We had a debate and had the Minister present months ago long before the other House debated the issue. The Senator also raised the matter of debates on topical issues and a foreign affairs committee which I have dealt with.
Senator O'Reilly asked for a debate on EC affairs and, in particular, the situation after 1992. In regard to the debate on EC affairs and noting developments in the EC, as was mentioned last week by Senator Manning, I am hopeful we will have a debate on that matter next Thursday. Obviously all matters that were referred to by Senators Hourigan, Naughten and others about agriculture and the EC can be raised. It should be a lively debate and I am looking forward to it.
Senator Murphy queried the establishment of a foreign affairs committee as did Senator McDonald. I note what Senator Ryan said on the Child Care Bill. He also asked for a debate on South Africa I accept that it is important but I have no plans for such a debate.
Senator Neville asked about item No. 8. I have no plan to take that. Senator Harte asked about An Post and a debate on the Third World. I have indicated my response on that. In so far as Senator Mooney's point is concerned, I have not seen any report of the Anglo-Irish tier. It is obviously something that would interest us all. I will investigate it and report back to him. I have noted Senator Norris's comments in regard to item No. 8. He asked about the legislation which is referred to in item No. 17. I will endeavour to do what I can to have that legislation initiated in this House, if at all possible. I have no plans for a debate on item No. 54. Senator E. Ryan referred to South Africa. I will do something about a debate on that as soon as possible.
Senator Cosgrave asked about the University of Limerick (Dissolution of Thomond College) Bill. That Bill as I indicated on the Order of Business, will be debated from 8 o'clock to 10 o'clock this evening. If we find that at 9.30 p.m., for example, Second Stage is completed we will move on to Committee Stage if the House agrees. That is what I have in mind.
Senator Cosgrave asked about legislation for next week. That is a long way off but on Thursday we will have an EC debate and either the Fisheries Bill or the Sea Pollution Bill on Wednesday. He also asked about other legislation. The Competition Bill is coming to us and Environmental Protection Agency will be with us in July and we will have at least two days on Report Stage on the Environmental Protection Agency. Senator Hanafin asked about a debate on South Africa and he also asked about an education debate. We had the Minister here a number of times. She was here two weeks ago and we had what I regard as an exhaustive debate on education. I do not intend to ask her to come into the House for some time yet.
I noted Senator O'Keeffe's point which was not relevant and neither was Senator Hederman's point regarding regional imbalance. I have no proposal for a debate on that matter. Neither have I a proposal for a debate on the disadvantaged areas mentioned by Senator Hourigan. He also mentioned health. I have not given any assurance of a debate on health. I try my very best to honour any commitment I give but I have not indicated there will be a debate on health at this time.
Order of Business agreed to.