It is proposed to take business in the following order: Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 1 (Second Stage), 12 (resumed) and 10. By agreement there will be no interruption for Private Members' Business today.
Order of Business.
In relation to No. 11, in the Order of Business, which deals with the subject matter of the European Monetary System I understand——
That is not on the Order of Business.
It is on the Order Paper, Sir. No. 11. The Government have indicated that they are prepared to offer time for discussion on this matter in the near future. Would the Taoiseach not agree that in order that there should be a proper and informal discussion on such an important issue it would be desirable that the Government publish a discussion paper setting out their assessment of the various implications involved in such a measure being taken? This paper should set out the Government's assessment of the effects on this country of Britain staying out or going into such a system, for example, the effect it would have on our employment prospects, our rate of inflation, foreign trade, rates of interest and so on. A discussion of such an important matter should only be undertaken by the Dáil after the Dáil and the public in general have been given the utmost detailed information regarding the assessment of the Government of the effects if such a move were made. All three political leaders recently attended a function in relation to the EEC and one of the aspects of the EEC that people find most disquieting is the secrecy and the undemocratic nature with which many decisions are taken by that institution. In a parliamentary democracy it is essential that the public be fully informed as to what assessment the Government have made under the various headings I have indicated and that no debate will take place in the Dáil until such a discussion paper has been published by the Government.
I would also ask that the Government publish some document in connection with this matter. This is something that should not turn into a Fine Gael-Fianna Fáil confrontation. It is something on which we must get as broad a national consensus as possible. The only way that can be done is by fully informing every Member of the consequences and the issues involved. Besides the discussion document proposed by Deputy Cluskey and a White Paper as I suggested a fortnight ago, studies were also undertaken by the Central Bank, the Department of Finance and the Department of Economic Planning and Development and I ask that these should be made available. I understand the Minister for Finance submitted to the Commission three documents in relation to this which I do not think are secret documents. One of them was certainly published in the papers in the past year. I would ask the Taoiseach to issue those documents also. The Taoiseach must accept that this is probably the most important economic issue that has come before this House in almost 16 years and there must be the widest possible understanding, not just in this House but amongst the public in general, of the implications of joining the European Monetary System or, if Britain does not join, of breaking the link with sterling and joining on our own.
I would like to associate myself with this appeal to the Taoiseach. On my own behalf I want to ask is it likely that we will have the Minister for Health's Family Planning Bill this session?
That is the hope. I will try to be as brief as possible but on the other hand I want to say a few things in relation to the questions raised about Motion No. 11. It has been the practice that the Taoiseach, at the end of the meeting of the European Council or the European Summit, reports to the Dáil as soon after as is possible on the conclusions as announced by the President for the time being of the European Council. The last European Council at which the prospect of the European Monetary System was discussed took place on the 6 and 7 of July in Bremen. At that time the Dáil had already adjourned so it was not possible for me to present orally to the Dáil the presidential conclusions. I did, however, have them placed in the Library on 18 July. I felt that, having regard to the special importance of the discussions at the Bremen Summit, I should put a motion down on the Dáil agenda that note be taken of the conclusions and in particulars of the European Monetary System proposals. It was my intention to initiate the session with that debate but I understand since that the Ministers for Finance of the member countries are meeting even next Monday to continue their studies of the new system. These studies are being undertaken also by Central Banks and financial experts of the various Governments so it would be utterly impossible at this stage to publish any kind of White Paper because conclusions would certainly not have been arrived at. It is the intention that I will open the debate on the general issues of the Bremen Summit but also referring in particular to the EMS proposals. It would be the intention that the Minister for Finance, having attended the Finance Minister's Council meeting next Monday, would follow on either immediately or very soon after to give the Dáil the up to date position as far as he will know it then.
It is not clear from what the Taoiseach said whether the Minister for Finance will be intervening in that debate or whether Motion No. 11 is down in the Taoiseach's name and will only deal with the Bremen Summit and there will be a further discussion on the EMS.
I thought I could not have been more clear. I said that I would deal broadly with the Bremen Summit conclusions and refer specifically to the EMS proposals and that I would be followed very soon after in the course of the debate by the Minister for Finance. If the Deputy will read the remarks I think he need not have made that intervention. I would invite the Deputy here and now to go immediately to the Dáil Office and read exactly what I said on the first occasion.
Having clarified the Taoiseach's intentions I wonder could we probe this a little further. Is this debate on Bremen and the Finance Ministers' Council intended to be the substantive debate on the European Monetary System issue, which is the most fundamental decision we shall have taken since joining the Community, or is it the intention that there will be a debate at a later stage but before the Summit in December preceded by the White Paper? I ask this because given the extraordinary complexity of the subject and the difficulty which even experts have in grappling with it, it would be quite impracticable to have an adequate debate on the basis of a verbal statement by the Taoiseach and then expect that the Opposition would respond there and then without having time to consider the facts.
It would be almost impracticable for even the Taoiseach, without speaking at inordinate length, to deal with the complexities and details which are of fundamental importance, to the mechanism referred to, so I would urge the Taoiseach either to reconsider his decision to have this debate next week or to agree that if such a debate takes place, it will be regarded as a preliminary only, to be followed by a White Paper and a full debate a a later stage. A White Paper stating the issues involved could be published now, even in advance of the discussions taking place in Brussels. I had expected that that would have been the Taoiseach's reply. Either that should happen or we should have a substantive debate based on a thoroughly informative White Paper containing all the data referred to by Deputy Barry, before the summit in December.
I did not hear the Taoiseach use the words "in the debate" otherwise I would not have asked the question, and I apologise. The papers to which I referred, to which the Taoiseach did not react in his reply, the studies conducted by the three Departments, the Central Bank and the two Departments concerned, and also the submissions by the Minister for Finance, would certainly help to form a background to the debate, if it takes place.
I cannot say if it would be proper for submissions made by the Minister to the Council of Ministers to be put before the House. I will have to consider it.
To the Commission.
To the Commission. In reply to Deputy FitzGerald, I intended that the forthcoming debate would be by way of a preliminary debate, so it will be a general review of the likely situation. I propose to have a more substantive debate as soon as we know what the issues are and what problems accepting the EMS would pose for us. As of now, even if the Brussels Summit on 4 and 5 December come to conclusions about it—I do not know if that is likely, but if it is—I hope that the Dáil will have an opportunity of discussing it in advance. It may be that final decisions will not be taken then and that there might be a discussion in the Dáil after 5 December. Either way I hope we will have the substantive discussion at a later date.
Will the initial debate be an open debate?
I do not know. I am prepared to leave that to the Whips to work it out between them.
When the Government submitted No. 11 on the Order Paper, was it with the intention that there would be a statement from the three party leaders, as was the previous practice on summit meetings?
It is put in this form deliberately, to provide for a debate.
Is it open ended?
Yes.
There is no time limit?
We do not propose to impose one, unless within reason.
Will the Taoiseach accept that in order even to engage in negotiations or discussions at European level, the Government must have already made an assessment of the possible consequences with regard to our employment situation, our inflation situation, our foreign exports and imports, and the rates of interest and so on. Surely it is reasonable in a democracy that the Opposition and the people be informed of the Government's assessment under these headings before any meaningful debate can take place among not only Members of the House but the general public. Would the Taoiseach consider it desirable and indeed essential that a discussion paper containing the Government's assessment of the possible effects of this change, be made available before a debate takes place?
We cannot have the debate now.
I am prepared to be as oncoming and as informative as circumstances will allow. I have already offered a preliminary debate and a more substantive debate at a later stage.
Dr. Fitzgerald
With regard to the substantive debate—and I have some doubts about the utility of the preliminary debate in the absence of the data referred to by Deputy Barry and Deputy Cluskey—would the Taoiseach assure us that there will be a White Paper which will clarify all the issues before the substantive debate takes place?
I cannot describe what colour the paper will be but obviously we will have to have some document for the information of the House and the public.
The Taoiseach mentioned the question of 3 December. Am I to take it that there is a possibility that we will enter into the European monetary system before the Dáil and the public have an opportunity of fully debating the whole question?
I would not think so. That would not be my intention.
It might not be the Taoiseach's intention but is there a possibility?
I would not think there is a possibility?
If the Deputy was less insistent he would get a lot more co-operation. The Deputy tends to raise hackles in people. I intend to be as co-operative, as informative and as oncoming as I can possibly be. Will the Deputy accept that?
I accept it and would expect it from the Taoiseach.
Deputy Mrs. Burke wishes to raise a matter.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle I wish to raise the subject matter of Question No. 106 on the Adjournment this evening. It is in connection with the appointment of the obstetrician gynaecologist for Roscommon County Hospital.
I will communicate with the Deputy.
May I ask for written answers to Questions Nos. 324 to 328, inclusive? I am also giving notice that with the permission of the Ceann Comhairle I wish to raise on the Adjournment the subject matter of the availability of Irish passports for Irish citizens living in the State.
I will communicate with the Deputy and the Deputy will get written answers to the questions referred to.
In view of the partial admission by the Minister for Economic Planning and Development of the fact that with only three months to go, the fall in the numbers out of work is only half what was projected in the Government programme, will the Taoiseach provide time for a debate on the policy changes necessary to get the economy back on the planned course towards the Government's target?
We do not need policy changes, therefore the question does not arise.
Will the Taoiseach accept that with three months to go and with the seasonal adjustment in unemployment figures only half the amount—
I am calling item No. 1.
—there is an indication of failure which requires a very considerable change of policy?
We are raising irrelevant matters.
I have been offering for some time. On the Order of Business I am anxious to ask the Taoiseach whether he proposes to make Government time available for a debate on the O'Briain Report. In pressing the Taoiseach to do so I would ask him to bear in mind that such a full-scale debate would be desirable in view of the public interest in the matter, in view of the fact that Government views were expressed on the date of publication of the report without any opportunity for any discussion of any description, in view of the about turn in policy on the part of the Government—
The Deputy is not asking a question, he is making a statement.
If the Deputy would ask a simple question he would get a simple answer. Would the Deputy throw his mind back to the cause of the establishment of the O'Briain committee? As far as the Deputy's question is concerned, I will consider it.
That is fair enough.
Item No. 1.
(Interruptions.)
I wish to give notice that I intend to raise on the Adjournment the subject matter of Question No. 253, which is the closure of industries in Waterford with particular reference to the closure of the National Board and Paper Mills.
I will communicate with the Deputy.
I wish to have a written reply to Question No. 312.
Question No. 312 for written reply.
At the end of the last session I received an assurance from the Taoiseach that a National Council for Educational Awards Bill would be published and made available before the commencement or at the commencement of this term. There is no reference to it on the Order Paper. Am I to take it now that the Bill will be shelved, or when can I expect publication?
The Minister for Education will be able to tell that.
It will be available in November.
On the Order of Business, could I inquire as to when a Bill providing for the changes in the health insurance scheme will be before the House?
Very shortly now.
Item No. 1.