It is proposed to take business in the following order: Nos. 1, 3, 10 (resumed) and 11. Private Members' Business from 7 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. will be No. 22 (resumed). It is proposed to interrupt business at 3.30 p.m. and to suspend Standing Orders under Standing Order 139 (1) to enable the Taoiseach and the leaders of the parties in Opposition to make statements not exceeding 20 minutes in each case on the situation in Lebanon and the role of UNIFIL, to enable statements not exceeding ten minutes each to be made by another member of each party and by each of the Independents and to enable the leader of each party or his nominee to make a reply not exceeding 15 minutes in each case. The Order of Business will be resumed thereafter.
Order of Business.
I take it that the wording does not preculde somebody other than the leader of a party from opening the debate should that be the wish of the party? I have only seen the wording now.
I would see no objection.
As it is worded, it does not provide for that——
But that is the effect?
Yes, that is right.
Could the Taoiseach say what steps, if any, he proposes to take to associate this House with the celebration of the Joyce centenary today?
Perhaps we might adjourn and take the Bloomsday trail. That would suit me very well.
(Interruptions.)
I take it that any functions that will be organised by the Government in relation to this centenary will be ones which will involve the whole House or representatives of the House?
I would hope so, yes. As the Deputy knows, we endeavoured to involve the Opposition parties in the major function in which the Government was involved, namely the reception the other evening. I was delighted to see the Deputy there in very good from and his gracious wife. It was very pleasant to have their company on that occasion.
I take it that this applies to other functions being organised by the Government also?
I would hope so. It is always my intention that all parties in the House should be represented at any function of this nature organised by the Government. I am sure we all share the heritage that Joyce has left us.
I am glad to have that assurance because arrangements were initiated during my time in office to celebrate the occasion by inviting various writers here and offering them hospitality on behalf of the Government. I have heard nothing more about it, so I take it that function has been cancelled?
I shall have to inquire into that and I will communicate with the Deputy.
I would ask the Taoiseach to investigate a very serious admission made by the Minister for Trade, Commerce and Tourism yesterday that he was aware that serious dumping was going on of foreign steel in this country — 11,000 tons in the first quarter. That is a serious admission and I would ask the Taoiseach to investigate why importation of this steel was not prevented. Surely a formal request had to be made to import the steel and surely at that stage——
The Deputy can put that down by means of ordinary question.
May I raise it on the Adjournment?
The Chair will communicate with the Deputy.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Some days ago I suggested to the Taoiseach that there should be a debate on the common fishery policy. I know negotiations did not take place but the debate did not materialise. There are rather alarming headlines in the papers these days suggesting that the common fishery policy is at a very advanced stage and that some very important things for the Irish fishing industry, such as right of access to our fishing waters, have in fact been settled in a way that I think would be disastrous for the fishing industry. Would the responsible Minister or somebody make a statement on the matter and inform the House of what has happened or is happening? If what is suggested is happening is really going on it would certainly spell disaster for the Irish fishing industry.
The Deputy must be aware that the Estimate for the Department of Fisheries is scheduled for Firday.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I understand there was a meeting of the Fishery Ministers yesterday and perhaps very serious decisions are being taken without any reference to us.
May we take it that no decision will be taken reducing to six miles the 50-mile exclusive limit which Fianna Fáil insisted was our right and could be achieved, as has been reported in the papers, without prior discussion in this House?
I do not think it is in order for me to enter into the merits of this matter. I suggest to Deputies opposite that they will have an opportunity to discuss the matter fully on the Estimates for the Department of Forestry and Fisheries on Friday.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Two things arise out of that: first, the Fishery Ministers' meeting is going on today and, secondly, I understand that the Fisheries Estimate will take its place some time after the Estimate for the Department of the Gaeltacht. The Gaeltacht Estimate seems to be a very controversial one which will probably take up the entire day. Will the Government not agree to give Government time for a meaningful debate on this very important issue, the common fisheries policy and the negotiations being conducted in that respect? Such a debate would be helpful to our Minister out there.
The Opposition should try to sort out their priorities. First, we have the Finance Bill and, secondly, we have arranged for an extra day's sitting to discuss Estimates but if the Opposition consider one Estimate to be more important than another, to take priority over another, the Government Whip will be glad to discuss that matter with them for the purpose of coming to some arrangement.
(Cavan-Monaghan): It is not good enough to brush aside the Irish fishing industry by saying simply that the Opposition should sort out their priorities. Time should be allowed specifically for a debate on the fishing industry. Such a debate would be in the interest of the industry.
I would remind the House that during the period of office of the previous Government there was not a single item of this sort debated in Government time. We asked on a number of occasions that time be given for debates of the type the Deputy is seeking but our requests were not acceded to on any occasion. This week, for instance, I am affording Government time for discussion of the situation in Lebanon and there will be an extra day's sitting to enable the Opposition to discuss Estimates. I consider the Government to be doing very well and fairly in this regard so far as the Opposition are concerned, that we are much more on-coming and fairer than were the previous Government in relation to us when we were in Opposition.
Two weeks ago the Minister for the Environment indicated that it was his intention to extend dead planning permissions but is the Minister still confident that the relevant legislation can be put through during the current Dáil session?
It is hoped to introduce the legislation on Friday morning.
Regarding fisheries, the point we are making is that we are seeking an assurance from the Government that no decision will be taken to reduce our exclusive fishing limit without prior discussion in the House. It is a question of getting an assurance from the Government that they will not throw away our rights in this matter without prior discussion in the House.
I have indicated already that I do not intend to discuss the issues at this stage. It would not be in order for me to do so on the Order of Business but I should like to point out that what Deputy FitzGerald is seeking is in complete contradiction to the way in which Government business was conducted when he was Taoiseach. During his period of office there was never any suggestion that Government decisions in any area be delayed until such time as the House had an opportunity to discuss them.
(Cavan-Monaghan): The question is not one of what was done then but of what ought to be done now. Is it a fact that our fishing rights into six miles——
This is not Question Time.
If the Deputy wishes to clarify a point, he should confine himself to that.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Is it the position that the fishing rights of Irish fishermen into six miles have been abandoned permanently in favour of French fishermen? If this is the case, it is disastrous for the industry.
We cannot go into the merits of the case at the moment.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I raised this matter a fortnight ago but opportunity has not been given for a debate on the issue.
Regarding the reference by the Minister for the Environment to the introduction of legislation on Friday next, I would remind him that all of Friday's sitting will be allocated to discussion of Estimates.
I hope to have the legislation with the Dáil Office on Thursday and that it will be in the hands of Deputies on Friday morning.
I do not accept the Taoiseach's statement as to what happened in 1976-77. All I can say is that the pressure from the Opposition at the time, though it involved some embarrassment from time to time domestically, was extremely helpful to the Government of the day in Brussels. This Government should have the wit to realise that a debate on the fisheries question would be very helpful to them in the critical situation they face in the final stages of the negotiations.
When is it expected to table the Criminal Justice Bill? Will it be before the end of this session?
The Deputy should be aware that the programme of business between now and the end of the session is under discussion between the Whips.
When is it proposed to introduce legislation to establish the rents tribunals? The Minister indicated earlier that it was to be presented to the House shortly.
Work is going ahead on the preparation of the legislation but whether it will be before the House during this session will depend on whether the amount of business agreed is concluded.
Has the Taoiseach any intention of informing the House as to what the wording of the proposed amendment to the Constitution is likely to be? There is a great deal of public concern about this issue but I should like to know whether the amendment to be proposed will be published prior to the drafting of the Bill.
I could not give the Deputy any guarantee that the amendment will be published in advance of the Bill but there will be ample time in accordance with normal procedure for a full public national debate of the issue well in advance of the referendum. The Bill itself will be debated here in the first instance and following that, there will be, presumably, a public campaign on the referendum issue itself.
In relation to what the Minister for the Environment has said regarding the time table, does he intend to ensure that the rents tribunals legislation is brought in in view of the fact that the rent controls legislation expires on 25 July and that this House will not be in session again until the middle of October so that thousands of tenants will be at risk during that time? During the truncated debate on this legislation the Labour Party will facilitate the passage of the legislation but we are concerned about the thousands of people who will be at risk during the summer months.
First, I do not accept that thousands of tenants will be at risk. The legislation we have will be coming into operation on 25 July and it involves the procedures going through the District Court. Therefore, there is cover in that sense. I agree that the rents tribunal system is the better one but it is a question of timing, of putting them into operation. The work in this regard was delayed considerably by reason of the fact that those officers in the Department dealing with the legislation had to deal also with the delays that were caused by reason of amendments made in the Seanad and which necessitated the Bill being returned to the Dáil. Regulations, then, had to be brought into force prior to bringing the legislation into operation on 25 July. These were regulations on foot of amendments from the Opposition.
(Cavan-Monaghan): The Minister has referred to the protection tenants would have in the District Court but is he aware of the condition in the District Court arising out of the enormous increase in jurisdiction conferred on that court without any arrangement having been made either in terms of district justices or of staff? Would the Minister ensure that the chaos that is imminent there will be avoided?
It would not be correct for me at this stage to engage in a general debate on the District Court but at the time of the introduction of the Bill I gave an assurance to the House that temporary justices would be appointed and that in addition places for the hearing of cases would be provided through the Department of Justice. I can assure the House that it is my desire to have the legislation on the tribunals introduced as soon as possible. If it can be done before the end of this session I give the House a guarantee that it will be. That is my aim because I accept that a tribunal is the way to handle this situation.