It is proposed to take Nos. 11 and 38. By agreement, the proceedings on No. 11 shall be brought to a conclusion not later than 7 p.m. today and the Minister for Foreign Affairs shall be called on to conclude not later than 6.30 p.m. today. Private Members' Business shall be No. 59, Motion No. 74.
Order of Business.
Is the Taoiseach in a position to tell us when we can expect the Páipéar Bán or leabhairín, whatever form it will take, that the Taoiseach promised me through the medium of Irish. When is it likely that the document will be available to the House.
Within the next week.
Will the Taoiseach give us any indication of the thoughts of the Government about the taking of the motion on the EC legislation? I understand that one Minister indicated that the agreement would be in place by 1 January but that this is not mandatory on the House.
Our understanding is that all Governments, including one in respect of which doubts have been expressed, the German Government, will have adopted the legislation through their Parliaments by the end of the year. We would wish to be in conformity with the others and not to have any adverse attention directed at us for dragging our feet. Therefore, the matter will come before the Dáil during this session.
I would draw your attention to the fact that as usual The Workers' Party were not involved in this cosy arrangement between the Whips? I wish to record my objection to the restriction of discussion on Item No. 11, the "slush fund", on which there is a guillotine at 7 o'clock. It is now five minute past four and it is unlikely, because there is no restriction on times for speakers, each of whom can take an hour——
I thank the Deputy for reminding me indirectly that I did not get agreement from the House on that. Are the arrangements for the taking of No. 11 today agreed?
Even though you did not ask, we agree.
It is not agreed.
I am putting the question: "That the proceedings on No. 11 shall be brought to a conclusion not later than 7 p.m. today and that the Minister for Foreign Affairs shall be called upon to conclude not later than 6.30 p.m. today". Na Teachtaí ar thaobh na tairisceana abraidís "Tá", agus na Teachtaí eile abraidís "Níl".
Níl.
Sílim go bhfuil an rún rite. The motion is agreed.
I am seeking leave of the House to withdraw Item No. 7.
Are the Labour Party moving out?
The proposal is that No. 7 be withdrawn. Is that agreed?
No. I want to say a word or two about this. Deputy Taylor is the most unlikely person to be dealing with video nasties. I am afraid he is engaged in somewhat unsavoury parliamentary tactics in this matter. We on this side would like to know why this proposal by the Labour Party is being withdrawn, particularly because they went to great trouble to ensure the maximum possible publicity in the media for their good intentions, for their concern for the public good, in having these unsavoury video nasties controlled. Why now do this distinguished Labour Party who are so concerned with the public welfare and morality——
Because there is a better way.
Why are they removing this legislation from the Order Paper, or have they something nastier in mind?
Of all the indications that go around in and out of the House regarding unsavoury activities, the objectives of the Labour Party in trying to advance certain important measures do not warrant the description of unsavoury. There are things that go on and are talked about that merit that description, perhaps. The purpose now is to put on the Order Paper in place of that proposed Bill a Race Relations Bill which is urgently needed here. The present position is bringing the country into disrepute because we are the only country in Europe which do not have such a measure. My understanding is that we may not have two Bills on the Order Paper at one time.
More publicity. Will they withdraw that, too?
I assure the House that it will be the intention of the Labour Party to reintroduce this measure at a later date when the Race Relations Bill has been duly adopted by the House, unanimously we hope.
I am very grateful to Deputy Taylor for having given us this explanation of a seemingly otherwise inexplicable procedure. I have fears, and perhaps the Deputy will confirm that they are groundless, that the Deputy could not proceed with the video nasties legislation pending the holding of the postponed Labour Party conference.
Is it agreed that Item No. 7, entitled the Video Recordings Bill, 1986, be withdrawn.
Question put and agreed to.
In view of the fact that the Government are not prepared to support the Labour Party Bill, would the Minister for Justice tell me when he intends to bring in his own video recording Bill, which he promised to the House on an earlier occasion?
The Deputy will be aware that it would be of considerable assistance to me if the Select Committee on Crime, Lawlessness and Vandalism had completed their report. I understand it will be completed shortly. I look forward to having the advice of that committee to assist me in the preparation of a Bill.
Might I inform the Minister that the committee completed their report and published it and that it has been on the Table of the House since June 1986? The Minister promised then that he would proceed urgently with the Video Recordings Bill. I ask the Minister now to refer to the copy which the committee sent to him directly. Without any further scandalous delay, will he carry through a simple measure which has the support of most Members of this House? If the Minister would get on with it he would have our support.
(Interruptions.)
I am calling item No. 11.
I will arrange for the secretary of the select committee to send a further copy to the Minister.