It is proposed to take Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6. It is further proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that (1) the debate on No. 2 shall not exceed one hour and the following provision shall apply in relation to the debate: (i) the speeches of the Minister or Minister of State and the main spokespersons for the Fine Gael Party, the Progressive Democrats Party and the Technical Group shall not exceed ten minutes in each case——
Order of Business.
We cannot hear the Taoiseach.
——(ii) the speech of each other Member called on shall not exceed five minutes and (iii) the Minister or Minister of State shall be called on to reply not less than five minutes before the debate is to conclude.
We cannot hear the Taoiseach.
The Taoiseach should speak up.
The Taoiseach is supposed to be invisible lately.
Do the Deputies want me to shout it from the roof tops? I am speaking as loudly as I normally speak; there must be something wrong with the Deputies' ears today.
If the incidence of noise subsided we might hear the Taoiseach.
(2) In the case of the resumed Second Stage debate on No. 5, the following arrangements shall apply: (i) the speech of the main spokespersons for the Progressive Democrats Party and the Technical Group shall not exceed 30 minutes in each case and (ii) the speech of each Member called on shall not exceed 20 minutes. (3) In the case of the resumed debate on No. 6, the speech of each Member called on shall not exceed 20 minutes. Private Members' Business shall be No. 10.
In relation to No. 1, the Criminal Justice Bill dealing with lenient sentences, because of the unprecedented concern from the general public and in response to many requests from the Opposition parties last week, the Government is prepared to proceed immediately with the Second Stage of this Bill following the Order of Business if the House wishes, but I am conscious also of the agreement between the Whips in regard to this week's business.
Is the proposal to deal with No. 2 satisfactory?
In regard to No. 2, I note that the order for speakers excludes the Labour Party. This is a controversial matter and caused a great deal of trouble during the debate on the Finance Bill last year when the Labour Party were kind enough to support an amendment I tabled. They ought to be given an opportunity to address the House now.
Hear, hear.
Is the proposal to deal with No. 2 agreed? Agreed. Are the proposals to deal with No. 5 agreed? Agreed. Are the proposals in regard to No. 6, the resumption of the budget debate, agreed? Agreed.
On the Order of Business, will the Taoiseach arrange for a debate on the position in Aer Lingus some time this week as many of the employees do not want to have to rely on statements by individual Ministers? They should have a comprehensive statement from the Government as soon as possible.
I hesitate to rule the matter out of order, but it is not a matter for the Order of Business.
Legislation is necessary in regard to this matter. I am asking——
Equity has been promised.
——in regard to Aer Lingus if something will be done as there is a sense of panic among the employees of that company as a result of what has appeared in our newspapers over the past few days.
I appeciate the Deputy's concern, but——
This matter should be dealt with immediately.
I have granted permission for the matter to be raised on the Adjournment this evening if that will help.
The House is anxious that there would be a reasonably lengthy debate and, while Deputy Noonan has obtained permission to raise the matter on the Adjournment, it is obvious that it will be a brief debate. Other Members of the House, in Government and Opposition, would like to contribute to this matter which is of concern to many families. I hope the Government will allow a debate on Aer Lingus some time this week.
I have put down a question on this matter——
The Chair has gone some way towards meeting Members' wishes on the matter by granting permission to have it raised on the Adjournment this evening. I am aware that the Deputy has put down a special question on it.
It is a matter for the Government.
The Chair has gone as far as he can go.
It is a matter of great urgency and concern to many thousands of people and an Adjournment debate which cannot last any more than ten minutes is inadequate to deal with it. Therefore, will the Government agree to a longer debate on the matter because of its urgent nature?
I can do no more.
The Government is well aware of the problems of Aer Lingus. We do not see an instant solution to it but the Government is dealing with it. The matter will be raised on the Adjournment tonight and, undoubtedly, statements will be issued by the Minister concerned in the next few days.
I understood from statements made by both parties in Government that they had an instant solution to this problem. That was the impression given by Government spokespersons at a meeting with Aer Lingus employees last week.
We cannot debate the matter now.
I am not seeking to debate it now, but I am seeking to ensure that this House appears at least to be relevant. There are at least 7,000 employees involved and we will be given a total of ten minutes to debate their future tonight; that is not adequate.
The Chair has allowed some latitude on the matter although it is not appropriate to the Order of Business. The Chair has allowed the matter to be raised on the Adjournment and that is all I can do.
Will their jobs go by default like those in Digital?
I realise that the Chair has allowed a certain latitude on this matter and I appreciate the reason for the national concern. Lest there be any misunderstanding that concern for the future of the workers in Aer Lingus and their families is being shown only by Opposition Deputies, let me say that that concern is also shared on this side of the House and we would like to see an early decision on it.
Let us have the debate.
We should be allowed to have a debate on it today.
(Interruptions.)
I call Deputy Coughlan.
Is it possible to take the Second Stage of the Criminal Justice Bill today? This needs to be dealt with immediately, given the fact that there are several other incest and rape cases, similar to the Kilkenny one, which will go before the courts. I would ask that this House be realistic and allow that debate to proceed this afternoon.
The Taoiseach has already adverted to the matter, perhaps we can now reach a consensus in regard to it.
In view of the many requests last week to deal with this matter, I was anxious to proceed with it at the first available opportunity. This is the first available opportunity and I ask the House to agree to proceed with this debate.
The Government suggested last week that this would be debated on Friday and this was accepted and incorporated in the Order of Business in good faith by those on this side of the House. It now appears that because the Minister will not be here on Friday she wishes to introduce the Bill today but will not to here on Firday to hear the comments of other Members. It is important that the Minister who introduces the legislation should be in a position to stay for the debate to hear what other Members say.
It was requested that this matter should be brought before the House at the earliest possible opportunity, we have done that and I recognise that the Whips agreed to take it next Friday. We requested that it be taken today and I believe everybody outside this House would expect us to debate it today. We are in a position to do so and, therefore, we should take it today.
There is no problem in taking it today.
There is no problem in taking it today, it is a matter for the Whips to meet following the Order of Business and decide at what time we should take it.
I have met the victim and her mother in this case and their concern is that there is a number of similar cases awaiting court proceedings. This is a matter of grave injustice and we want to have it dealt with quickly and have the Bill put on the Statute Book. Therefore, I would appreciate the support of other parties in taking it today.
I am sure nobody has any objection to taking it quickly, but it is very difficult to take it at a few minutes' notice. It would be more appropriate to take it tomorrow morning in order to give people an opportunity to prepare for it.
I would also remind the House that the Criminal Justice (No. 2) Bill is also on the Order Paper and is being debated this evening and tomorrow evening. It deals with matters which are at least as important as those in this Criminal Justice Bill, and which are equally as urgent. I would like to think the Government would show the same sense of urgency about that, and they can demonstrate that tomorrow evening by accepting the provisions of the other Criminal Justice Bill in Deputy Harney's name. I think an ideal package would be a combination of what is in the two Bills because each deals with matters which are of extreme urgency.
I now call Deputy Owen.
May I give way to my colleague, Deputy J. Bruton?
Sir, I would be happy to agree to devote the whole of tomorrow to this legislation so that all Members, including the Opposition, would have the opportunity of speaking in the debate. Is that agreeable?
That is fine. We will order it for tomorrow.
I take it Deputy Gilmore that you wish to raise the same subject.
Yes, on the same subject——
I thought we had come to a consensus to order it for tomorrow.
I understand the consensus relates to the taking of Second Stage but not to when the Criminal Justice Bill, 1993, will be enacted. Would the Taoiseach agree that the House should continue to sit next week to deal with this legislation so that it will be enacted?
All Stages will be taken tomorrow, as has already been agreed.
Sir, I think the best way to handle this is to have the matter discussed between the Whips to allow for agreement on the taking of all Stages. I think there should be some gap between the Second and Committee Stages.
I am referring the matter to the Whips as it is difficult to get a consensus here.
We nearly got there.
As there is a consensus, I suggest that we could reach a consensus on having the Aer Lingus debate on Thursday. I believe everyody in this House, including the Fianna Fáil backbenchers, would like to have this matter debated.
Is that a matter for information?
We know the Deputy will have the Whip's job yet.
On page four of the Programme for Government it is proposed to establish a third banking force — which would involve at least two pieces of legislation — comprising the ICC, the ACC and the Trustee Savings Bank. Perhaps the Taoiseach will let us know if it is intended to go ahead with this third banking force in view of the fact that the Minister for Finance has been meeting French bankers about the sale and privatisation of ACC. Did the Government discuss the accounts of the ACC this morning — perhaps they might let us know if the concept of a third banking force has been dropped.
(Interruptions.)
I now call Deputy Owen.
Deputy Spring, find out what they are doing.
In his reply last week, the Taoiseach told us that legislation arising from the Supreme Court decision in the "X" case is at the early stages. Does he propose to bring forward the legislation more quickly in view of the Medical Council's code of ethics as it now puts doctors in the position where they might be breaking the law or their code of ethics? Will the Taoiseach consider bringing this legislation forward more speedily than it was intended? This is a very serious legal matter.
I said last week that the legislation is at the very early stages of preparation. All matters raised by the Deputy will be taken into consideration in bringing the Bill forward.
The Government promised legislation to amend the European Communities Act, 1972, to provide for the formal and final ratification of the Maastricht Treaty. When is it proposed to introduce this legislation?
The Bill the Deputy mentions is almost ready.
When will it be introduced?
Item No. 1 refers to the Criminal Justice Bill, 1993, Order for Second Stage, which is now being referred to the Whips.