It is proposed to take item No. 1 for two hours, with ten minutes for the spokesperson of each party, and five minutes thereafter. We will have a sos from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. and we will take item No. 2 until 4 p.m.
Order of Business.
May I thank the Acting Leader of the House for having arranged the debate on request and also for broadening it out to include anybody who wishes to speak in the debate? It is a good start. In view of the very incomplete answer given by the Taoiseach in the other House on the establishment of an all-party committee on foreign affairs, may I ask the Acting Leader of the House to convey to the Taoiseach our view that in any plans which are being drawn up, this House would expect to have full representation on an all-party basis on such a committee but also that we will press very hard for the establishment of such a committee?
May I ask the Acting Leader of the House three questions? First, what is the present situation in relation to the Milk (Regulation of Supply) (No. 2) Bill and are negotiations in progress between the Department of Agriculture and Food and the people who work in the Dublin and Cork Milk Marketing Boards? Second, what is the situation in relation to the Control of Dogs Bill and can we expect that in the foreseeable future? Third, what is the present position in relation to the promised debate on the banks? Is that debate any nearer than it was last week?
Is it envisaged that the municipal election will be held this year and will the promised legislation, as envisaged in the Barrington report, be introduced before those elections? Second, will the review of the constituencies, outlined in the Programme for Government 1989-1993, be carried out in the near future?
How does the Acting Leader of the House intend to bring to the attention of the Taoiseach the views that will be expressed here over the next two hours in relation to Article 43.3.3º of the Constitution, particularly in view of the expressed wishes of the Taoiseach to consult widely in relation to this matter? Second, may I ask the Acting Leader of the House, in view of the official statistics announced yesterday relating to the trading figures, which showed an excess of exports over imports of more than £2 billion, will a debate on unemployment and job creation be brought forward considering our unemployment is increasing all the time while our economy seems to be booming in terms of exports surplus? Third, may I refer to a matter I raised yesterday in the House — item No. 47 on the Order Paper which seeks a Presidential pardon for Nicky Kelly? The Minister for Justice indicated to this House in October, four months ago, that he was seeking the advice of the Attorney General on the matter and, as yet, has made no statement on either receiving advice or what that advice is.
The Acting Leader of the House indicated to me yesterday that I could put down that motion in Private Members' Time. The last time I attempted to bring forward a motion within a six month period in relation to An Post I was ruled out of order, and I have again raised this matter within a four month period. Will the Acting Leader come back to the house with a response from the Minister for Justice as to the advice he received, if any, from the Attorney General?
I do not want to go over what I said yesterday. The Acting Leader had the foresight, and I believe it augurs well for the future, that instead of having clamours for debates here he will anticipate the current debate issues.
May I go back to a long-standing request of mine? I do not want a debate on industrial policy, but I want a debate on how we treat the unemployed today. That is something that can be dealt with now. We may not be able to end unemployment but when the State persecutes 300,000 people week after week with meaningless qualifications, when it picks on women in particular in the way it operates the social welfare system, then we should talk about that now and not fudge it by talking about other issues, which are important, but I would like a debate on how we treat the unemployed. I suggest that we should talk about not unemployment but the unemployed. We should have statements on the 300,000 people who are unemployed and who suffer every week from the way this State treats them. That is what I would like us to talk about, not industrial policy or job creation, but what we do every day to 300,000 people.
I welcome the fact that this debate has been granted. It is a very wise and politic move and I am sure it will be an informed and important debate. I am sorry it will be restricted to two hours because, as I understand it, the first four speakers will have ten minutes, and that simply allows 14 speakers. Perhaps that is enough but I would like to ask the Acting Leader, if a significant number of people wish to speak even at the end of the two hours, could the time be extended a little to accommodate everybody? It may be that there is sufficient time but we will be making statements rather than having a debate and I wonder if there is any provision for a Government response or will the Acting Leader undertake to convey the sense of the House to the Government and seek a response which can be given to the Members concerned privately or to the House in public? I would also like to thank you, Sir, for taking the Motion on the Adjournment on the Hirschfeld Centre. I am sure the Business of the House will extend to 4 o'clock because I am lecturing until almost 4 o'clock, but I will be here at 4 o'clock.
The Senator is lecturing all the time.
Without, regrettably, any noticeable effect on the Senator's moral or intellectual improvement. I have to put you down, Senator Honan, as one of my least successful pupils.
May I join in the thanks to the Acting Leader for making time available for statements on Article 40.3.3º. of the Constitution. My question has already been covered by Senator Norris, that is, in view of the gravity of this matter, in the event that there are people offering at the end of the two hours, could there be any arrangement made to extend the time? My other question has been covered by Senator Upton. When is it intended to take the Committee Stage of the Milk (Regulation of Supply) (No. 2) Bill, Item No. 6 on the Order Paper? When does the Acting Leader propose to debate item No. 8 — the report of the Industrial Policy Review Group — where I believe we could also cover employment and unemployment?
Will the Acting Leader give time for a debate on the figures which were leaked yesterday regarding the increase in crime? We understand there was an 8 per cent increase in crime last year, a fact we were telling the previous Minister for Justice over the last year and which he refused to believe. It is important that we have a debate on that issue.
May I also ask the Acting Leader of the House if he will give time for a debate on the civil law dealing with defamation? I asked this last week and I am sure he has had time to consider the issue. It is an important issue which the media and events over the past 12 months have highlighted; I have in mind issues which should be raised in the national media but could not be raised here and were raised elsewhere. The freedom of the press is vital to democracy and we should have a debate on this very important issue.
I support Senator Manning's request that the pressure for instituting a joint committee on foreign affairs be maintained. We want to let the Taoiseach know that his initial response is simply not good enough. There was a suggestion that such a committee might be a rival jurisdiction to Foreign Affairs and to the Government Administration. That smacks of paternalism and I was disappointed about that. I hope the pressure is kept up in that regard.
I note that Senator Fitzgerald is wearing his earphones. I hope the various dialects, including my Cork patois, are being adequately translated.
Obviously it is not intended to have the Government represented in the House during statements. I, like other Members, welcome the opportunity of this debate but I believe that, even at this late stage, a request should be made to have a Government presence in the House. It is an extremely important debate and while I have the greatest faith that my colleagues across the floor will carry to their colleagues in Government what takes place here — indeed the record will be there — it is very important that we should have a Minister present in the House.
First, may I thank the Whips and party leaders for agreeing the arrangements for this morning's debate. I hope everybody will feel that in no way is this side of the House trying to stifle a debate or statements. I am sure that should the situation arise that there are people who would like to contribute, the House can accommodate them. As it is we will proceed with the Order of Business.
Before the debate starts I would like to make two points. The Taoiseach was keen that the House would have an opportunity to debate this issue. He, the Government and all agencies associated with Government are doing everything humanly possible to find a solution to this problem. In no way were President Robinson's comments, made yesterday, in any way contrary to the views of the Taoiseach, the Government and all parties in the House. I hope that is the way the debate will go, that all of us using our wisdom will find a solution to this tragic problem.
Senator Manning and others mentioned a foreign affairs committee. The former Leader made several attempts to ascertain from the former Taoiseach the possibility of that committee being formed and to ensure that this House is represented. I will carry on those efforts.
As regards the milk Bill and other legislation mentioned here this morning, I have contacted the Ministers and asked them what timescale they would like for the legislative programme before them. I will come back to the various Senators who mentioned legislation. With regard to local election reform and constituency revisions, I will leave that for another day.
As regards item No. 46 I will certainly contact the Minister for Justice and express the views Senator Costello outlined. Regarding industrial policy, I would welcome a debate on policy, jobs, unemployment and I hope we will have that quite soon.
Finally, I will ensure that the views expressed here this morning are conveyed to the people concerned.
Order of Business agreed to.