It is proposed to take Nos. 1, 6, 2, 3 and 9. Private Members' Business will be No. 19. By agreement and notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders the proceedings on all stages of item No. 2 shall be brought to a conclusion not later than 4 p.m. by one question which shall be put from the Chair and which shall in relation to amendments include only amendments set down by the Minister for Finance. Also by agreement the proceedings on Second Stage of item No. 3 shall be brought to a conclusion not later than 9.30 p.m. and the Minister for Social Welfare shall be called on to conclude not later than 9.15 p.m. Also by agreement the proceedings on the remaining Stages of item No. 9 shall be brought to a conclusion not later than 10 p.m. by one question which shall be put from the Chair and which shall in relation to amendments include only amendments set down by the Minister for Justice. Also by agreement the Dáil shall sit later than 9 p.m. today and not later than 10.30 p.m. and business shall be interrupted at 10 p.m.
Order of Business.
I take it that the arrangements for today's business are agreed?
Agreed.
I should like to ask the Taoiseach if it is intended to avail of any opportunity today, or tomorrow, to inform the House of the arrangements which have been made in respect of the Whiddy oil terminal. I am sure the Chair will agree that this is a matter of pretty far-reaching importance and implication. As the matter has been mentioned in the daily press and on the radio it is only proper that the House should be given information about it at the earliest possible moment.
That was not made in a tent.
The Deputy can take the matter up with the Whips in the ordinary way if he wishes consideration to be given to any discussion.
I did not hear what the Taoiseach said.
I am sorry. Was the Deputy listening?
The Taoiseach's own backbenchers were giggling and sniggering which seems to be their main contribution in this House.
I do not think the contributions of the Deputy, and the other side of the House, have been of a very high standard recently, if I may express the opinion.
Can the Taoiseach keep the three-day Attorney General under control up there?
If the Deputy looks after his party and teaches them how to count the members at party meetings I will look after my party.
On the point raised, the question of any statement of that kind is one that could be raised with the Whips and I presume will be if the Deputy is serious in raising this.
It is a serious matter. All I am asking is if the Taoseach will give his agreement in principle to the matter and then the Whips can make the arrangements.
It is a matter to be raised with the Whips in the first instance and then discussed in the ordinary way.
The Taoiseach is very forthcoming this morning.
The Order of Business just announced requires the House to debate very important legislation in three-and-a-half hours by agreement——
I must interrupt the Deputy——
Will the Chair wait until he hears what I am about to propose? I should like to suggest to the Government Chief Whip that at least one hour of that time be devoted to a Committee Stage discussion on the Bill. I presume that that is not only relevant but essential. The time is totally inadequate but, nonetheless, we need at least one hour for a Committee Stage discussion.
An order has been made, and that order cannot be changed, for the times of completion of the items concerned without another order of the House. Any sub-agreements within that time limit can be arranged between the Whips.
If that is the case we would be happy to facilitate the Opposition in the breakdown of time for discussion of the Bill, in the circumstances.
A Bill, the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) (Amendment) Bill, 1984, which has just been circulated has a number of unusual features. It will take some time to debate the Bill, and, indeed, it may require some significant amendments. I should like to know when it is intended to take the Bill.
Next session.
Why is it that an explanatory memorandum was not circulated with the Bill or is it intended to provide one later? This Bill has a number of unusual features and an explanatory memorandum would be very helpful.
Unusual things are happening.
It is a matter of judgment whether a Bill requires an explanatory memorandum, but it does not appear to be so in this instance.
Is the Taoiseach saying there will not be an explanatory memorandum?
The position is that there is not one, and it is a matter of judgment whether there should be one.
I am asking the Taoiseach if he will provide one because of the unusual features in the Bill which will require detailed explanations. Is the Taoiseach trying to conceal something in the Bill? Is that why there is no explanatory memorandum? This is a substantial Bill with very wide-ranging powers being given to the Minister and the Government and in my view it would require an explanatory memorandum.
May I make an appeal to Members? We have just agreed on a very heavy day's Order of Business and provided a limited time for disposal of that business. I would ask Deputies not to erode the time available by raising numerous matters.
With respect, Sir, I asked a very relevant and simple question and asked for a simple answer. It appears the Taoiseach is not prepared to provide an explanatory memorandum. If that is so, let it be seen to be the case.
I do not agree with the Order of Business.
You did not disagree.
I want to register my objection to the Order of Business where two major pieces of legislation are being put before the House and the guillotine being used, whereas last week——
Will Deputy Mac Giolla bear with the Chair? I put the Order of Business to the House and asked if it was agreed. I declared it agreed and I cannot hear you now, although I could have heard you then.
The Ceann Comhairle did not recognise me when I was standing, even before Deputy Haughey, to register very strongly my disagreement with the Order of Business. I think the House is being treated with disdain. We are not party to this agreement.
It is already agreed.
The Workers' Party disagree with the Order of Business and we very strongly disagree with the way the guillotine is being introduced because there is still plenty of time before Christmas to discuss this.
It is not helpful to erode what time we have.
What other time do I have to raise this matter except on the Order of Business?
Dún Laoghaire): The Whips rang The Workers' Party offices last night. Some of us were working until 11 o'clock last night while other Members were away and there was no answer to their phone.
That is most unsatisfactory——
It was most unsatisfactory.
I cannot accept that as being satisfactory because this——
I must ask Deputy Mac Giolla to resume his seat because this item has been dealt with.
We are dealing with the Order of Business.
No, we are not. We have agreed a timetable for today's business and there is nothing I can do about it.
I did not agree and I rose to say that at the very beginning but you did not recognise me.
The Deputy should have been as vocal then as he is now and I could not have avoided hearing him.
I am pointing out that there is still ample time before Christmas——
Deputy Mac Giolla must resume his seat.
(Limerick West): With your permission may I raise on the Adjournment the Government's blunder and the miscalculation by the Minister for Agriculture as regards the milk superlevy figures which will cost the dairy farmers £60 million?
I will communicate with Deputy Noonan.
Over £600,000 in a CIE transport tontine and benefit society are in danger, moneys that would be withdrawn at Christmas. Would the Minister drag the Minister for Communications in here — we have not seen him for ages — to assure the House that he is taking what steps he can to preserve that money for the transport employees?
That does not arise here.
I would like to help the Taoiseach save millions of pounds. Would the Taoiseach direct a Minister to try to avert the threatened customs strike next Saturday?
That does not arise now.
I am being helpful to the House. We will be trying to save millions of pounds over the next few months——
I am calling Deputy Andrews.
Last week the Border was manned by the security forces for other purposes but not for the purpose of customs and excise. The Minister for Finance is misleading the House.
I am calling Deputy Andrews.
I hope you are not discriminating against backbenchers, but I have been trying to raise on the Adjournment a number of subjects as you are aware, drugs, trees and the motor taxation office. I wonder if you would choose one of these subjects for me and give me the opportunity to raise the matter?
To get off on the right foot, will Deputy Andrews withdraw the allegation, the suggestion or the implication that I am discriminating against backbenchers?
I did not say that. I said I hoped you were not discriminating against backbenchers.
The Chair is regarding that as a suggestion and I am asking the Deputy to withdraw it.
Because of the time of year that is in it, Christmas, and a time of peace, I withdraw it.
Would the Taoiseach ask the Minister for Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism, Deputy Bruton, if he will meet the PMPS protection group because up to now he has refused to meet them? Is the Taoiseach aware of the hardship——
I am calling Item No. 1.
I have made several attempts to get a commitment from the Minister to meet this group. Will the Taoiseach see to it that the Minister will meet this group as soon as possible?
The Deputy is not in order.
Is the Taoiseach not going to answer this appeal?
I wish to raise on the Adjournment the urgency of a grant scheme for fuel conversions for the glasshouse industry.
I will communicate with the Deputy.
May I raise on the Adjournment the refusal of the Department of the Public Service to allow the board of Ireland West to advertise for a regional manager?
I will communicate with the Deputy.