It is proposed to take Nos. 7, 13, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 14. It is also proposed that No. 7 shall be taken without debate.
Order of Business.
May I ask if the proposal in respect of No. 7 is agreed?
On that point, I welcome the decision to set up this committee after such a long delay and after such prevarication by the Government. We made it clear in my party that we would have preferred to see broader terms of reference for the committee, but, in practical terms, the committee will be able to give themselves a wider brief. I am calling on the Government to give an undertaking that we will follow well established precedent in this matter and that the chair of that committee will be held by a member of the principal Opposition party, as has been the case in relation to similar committees in the past.
I will allow a brief comment from the other spokespersons.
I want to make it clear that I am not accepting that.
In welcoming the decision to establish the committee, which is somewhat overdue, I should like to ask the Taoiseach to indicate when it is expected that the committee will be fully established and what resources will be made available to them.
The Workers' Party welome the motion and, as we have said on numerous occasions, we are amazed that it has taken since last November to move the motion. We have also suggested basic amendments to broaden the terms of reference of the committee to include policing, courts, prisons, places of detention and crime prevention in view of the many issues that have arisen. While they have not been taken on board, the committee will give the House an opportunity to do some practical work in those areas in view of default, on many occasions, of the Minister for Justice. We welcome the establishment of the committee and express hope that they will be given all the resources necessary to function adequately. That problem has been raised by other Deputies in respect of other committees of the House. We hope the committee will be given priority in regard to resources.
I seek clarification of this, bearing in mind that we will not be having a debate on the motion. When will the details relating to the committee be before the House and will we be given an opportunity to debate them?
I understand that all this has been agreed between the Whips. If there is going to be any particular argument about it I will have no hesitation in withdrawing the proposal altogether. Deputies continually demand the establishment of committees but when the Government endeavour to meet them they find all sorts of things to cavil about. This committee will operate on exactly the same terms as the last committee.
I am sorry that the Taoiseach is making such an issue of this.
It is the Deputy who is making the issue of it.
It is a long established precedent in the House, from the days when we previously had a committee——
I have allowed comment on the matter and I must put the question.
——set up at the instigation of my party, that the Opposition held the chair of this committee as has been the case in relation to other committees. I will not have any bullyboy tactics from the Taoiseach.
There is no need for disorder.
I am suggesting that the Taoiseach go ahead with the committee and we agree to the setting up of the commitee by the Committee of Selection after which the matter will be taken back before the House.
The question is that No. 7 be taken without debate.
I suggest to the Taoiseach that civilised parliamentary practices will require him to rethink his attitude before this comes back to the House.
With some restraint I did not ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the word "prevarication" because I presumed he used it in the wrong sense.
I used the word in its proper sense. It has taken more that three years to get the Government to come to their senses in regard to this.
Let us deal with the Order of Business this morning in an orderly fashion.
Finally, after much argument we now have a committee on crime but the Taoiseach still has not brought himself to the point, after more than three years, to make a decision on a foreign affairs committee.
The Deputy is bringing in new matter.
We are coming next month to a debate in the European Council on one of the most important issues facing the European Community and the Government will not allow a proper debate on it.
In view of Deputy Dukes's attitude the Government do not propose to move item No. 7.
That is bully tactics of the worst order.
There can be no debate on the matter now.
I should like to raise a point of order.
The Deputy should not try that one on me.
My understanding, under Standing Orders, is that the matter was moved and that the Chair was putting the question. Is it in order for the Taoiseach, in the face of nothing more than simple points being put to him by the Opposition, to childlike withdraw what I understood to be a serious proposal that had been the subject of long discussions by the Whips? I should like to ask the Taoiseach to reconsider his decision. This is no way to treat the issue of the establishment of an important committee of the House simply because the Taoiseach got out of the wrong side of the bed.
The motion I was moving was that item No. 7 be taken without debate. I allowed a brief debate on it and I am not going to allow anything like a detailed debate.
I would have thought that the emperor of all Europe would be a little better behaved than he was this morning.
I will allow a brief comment from Deputy Quinn before proceeding to other business.
My comment relates to the business of the House and not to the content of a matter that has been clearly dealt with. I understand that we were asked to agree the order for the day and since that order is before the House it is up to any Member to agree or not to agree to it. Is that correct?
This relates to Government time.
I am afraid it is too late for the petulance of the Taoiseach or for him to behave in the manner he has.
This is in relation to Government time.
If the Government want to vote against their own committee that is their choice.
That is right.
It is not necessarily their prerogative to move it now. Once it is on the Floor of the House anybody can move it and I am now saying that it is the intention of the Labour Party to move it. If the Government want to vote against it they can.
It is the prerogative of the Taoiseach to decide the Order of Business, that is his privilege.
It was proposed.
I propose, Sir, that the motion be put.
The motion is now before the House and, therefore, cannot be withdrawn. There must now be a vote on it and if the Taoiseach wants to vote against it so be it.
On a point of order, a discussion took place on the Order of Business, we have not moved Item No. 7 and we do not intend to do so.
Deputies
You did move it.
The Taoiseach is correct. It was not moved by him but the Order of Business was agreed and the motion can be moved by any Member of this House. We will move it. I formally move: "That Item No. 7 be agreed without debate".
The House is well aware that the Order of Business is the prerogative of the Taoiseach of the day.
No.
Yes, Deputy, I say it is.
On a point of order——
Deputy Quinn rose.
Deputy Quinn, please, I am calling Deputy Bruton.
On a point of order, is it not the case that the Government proposed an Order of Business which includes No. 7 and that as soon as the discussion on the Order itself is concluded — and I understand this Order is agreed — we will then move to No. 7 when it will be open to any Member of the House to move it.
On a point of order, as I understand the position the Government as is their duty and right, proposed an Order of Business which includes Item No. 7. It would normally be the duty of the Chief Whip to move Item No. 7 but, in view of the completely unfounded allegations — particularly by Deputy Dukes — the Government do not now propose to move No. 7.
The Government are not interested in this committee. The Taoiseach did not want it in the first place. He proposed that we should take this matter without debate, I have no objection to taking it without debate but I am telling the Taoiseach now——
(Interruptions.)
That side of the House always like to have things done for them so be quiet while I am talking sense. I am now saying to the Taoiseach that when this matter comes before the House — which it must under a report from the Committee on Selection — we will be making points and arguments about who takes the Chair. We want long established precedents in this House — of which the Taoiseach is well aware — to be adhered to in this matter as would be the case with other committees the Government set up.
I am moving to other business now.
May I seek clarification? Do I understand that once the Order of Business has been agreed — which is the case in relation to this matter — any item on the Order of Business is the property, so to speak, of the entire House——
The Order of Business has not been decided——
Could we have a definitive ruling?
In accordance with Standing Order 25, the Taoiseach shall have the right to determine the order in which Government business shall appear on the Order Paper and by announcement at the commencement of public business the order in which it will be taken each day.
Which he did.
That process has already taken place. The Order of Business has been agreed. I do not want to get involved in this row.
(Interruptions.)
The Taoiseach was provoked but perhaps he might reconsider and allow this committee to be established.
I am anxious that this committee be established. In fact, despite Deputy Dukes's allegations, I have been pressing my Chief Whip for some time to get this committee established.
Three years?
It was finally agreed by the Whips and it was to come before the House this morning on the basis of no debate. Deputy Dukes has broken the agreement between the Whips and, therefore, I am perfectly entitled — even though the item is on the Order of Business — not to move it. However, in order to be reasonable——
The Taoiseach is backtracking.
——in regard to this matter I suggest that, by agreement, we do not now proceed with No. 7 and ask the Whips to meet and discuss it further.
There is a wider dimension to democracy than just this House. I suggest that perhaps, on reflection, without reference to the composition of the committee, terms of reference or when they might come into existence, the Taoiseach might now allow the matter to go through without debate and that, subsequent to the decision, the Whips would meet as he suggested.
I appreciate the spirit in which Deputy Quinn is offering but, in view of the things that were said — particularly by Deputy Dukes — it is better at this stage, to get reason and commonsense into the situation, not to proceed with the item now but to ask the Whips to meet to discuss it further and come before us next week with an agreed proposal.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
I am now calling Item No. 13, the Radiological Protection Bill, 1990.
May I remind you that you have not put the Order of Business to the House?
I had disposed of the Order of Business, the only item to be put was No. 7 which has now been deferred so there is nothing to put to the House.
On a point of order — Item No. 7 is part of the business to be taken, it is not part of the Order of Business.
The Taoiseach might want to reconsider that too.
Item No. 7, at the request of the Taoiseach, has been deferred for consideration by the Whips.
(Limerick East): I asked yesterday — and I should like to ask again — about the Government's intention in regard to Gleeson Report No. 31 on office-holders' pensions. Is the Bill in course of preparation?
I misunderstood the Deputy's question yesterday as I took him to be referring to another report. Since then, my office have cleared up the matter with him, I hope. The position with regard to the particular Gleeson report to which he refers is that it is still under consideration.
I wish to raise on the Adjournment the number of Irish children going abroad for neurosurgery and the failure of Beaumont Hospital to replace Mr. Patrick O'Neill.
I will communicate with the Deputy.
Will the Taoiseach say whether his Government have been consulted by the British Government on the introduction of an embarkation card system by the British Government under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 1976?
That matter does not arise now.
In a most orderly manner I should like to raise on the Adjournment the future of Santry Woods, the role the Government can play in saving this amenity in view of the present activities and the grave concern of the residents in the area——
I will communicate with the Deputy, there is no need to elaborate now.
We are very concerned——
No, I will communicate with you in respect of your desire to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
I should like to raise on the Adjournment the question of the serious condition of St. Mary's Cathedral, Limerick, the oldest Church of Ireland church in use. It is very badly in need of repair and the only way it can be repaired is through some form of Government funding.
I will communicate with the Deputy.
Perhaps the Deputy will take into account that St. Mary's Limerick is not the oldest church. That honour belongs to St. Doulagh's Church, Balgriffin, County Dublin.
Along with St. Brigid's Cathedral, Kildare.
At least we have something real to fight about.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, may I raise on the Adjournment this evening with the Minister for Education the extraordinary decision by her Department to slash by at least 50 per cent the financial allocation to the new secondary school building at Castlerea, County Roscommon.
I will be in touch with the Deputy concerning that matter.
As the veterinary inspectors at poultry plants are still on strike, as I understand from media reports, there is a grave danger of an escalation of that strike next week and since it is a matter of such urgency for that industry, I should like, with your permission, Sir, to raise it on the Adjournment this evening.
I will communicate with the Deputy.
With your permission a Cheann Comhairle, may I again seek to raise on the Adjournment the issue of legal education at the Law School in Dublin with particular reference to the status of those solicitors who qualified since 1984 and the issue of the continued use of arbitrary control of numbers. In respect of the second matter, a Cheann Comhairle, your office conveyed to me yesterday a view that that matter might still be sub judice but my understanding is that that has now been resolved and is no longer the subject of litigation.
I will communicate with the Deputy in regard to that matter.
A Cheann Comhairle, with your permission I should like to raise again on the Adjournment the question of the deteroriating condition and the need for urgent improvement at Scoil Colmcille in Indreabhán, Contae na Gaillimhe.
I will communicate with the Deputy in regard to that matter.
With your permission, Sir, I should like to raise the subject matter of Question No. 89 of 22 May. I should also like to ask the Taoiseach whether he has given any further consideration to a request from Fine Gael for a debate on the world trade talks before decisions are taken to Ireland's detriment.
I will communicate with the Deputy in respect of the first matter he has raised. The second matter does not arise now.
It does, Sir. The Fine Gael Party have requested a debate in this House on the world trade talks.
That is primarily a matter for the Whips.
I am sure the Taoiseach would wish to indicate his concern in this matter. Has he agreed to a debate?
I see Deputy Durkan is offering.
It appears the Taoiseach is willing to respond.
We have agreed to have a debate on Community matters generally. Perhaps that could be stretched to include the position of the Community in regard to the GATT negotiations.
I wish to raise on the Adjournment the subject matter of Question No. 181 of 25 April last.
I will be in touch with the Deputy concerning that matter.
Can we now proceed to deal with item No. 13? Items Nos. 8 to 11 are inclusive in this debate.