It is proposed to take Nos. 7 and 18. It is also proposed, subject to the agreement of the House, that the following arrangements shall apply in the case of the debate on No. 7: The proceedings, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 6.45 p.m. today; the Taoiseach shall be called on not later than 6.30 p.m. to conclude the debate; the speech of the main spokesperson for each of the groups as defined in Standing Order 89 shall not exceed 20 minutes; and the speech of each other Member called on shall not exceed 15 minutes. Private Members' Business shall be No. 30.
Order of Business.
May I ask if the proposals for dealing with Item No. 7 are satisfactory and are agreed to?
No, Sir. My party are not prepared to agree to the arrangements for the taking of Item No. 7. We believe that the House, and all Members of it, should have an opportunity to express their views on the proposed filling of this vacancy, on the circumstances under which this vacancy arose and the general collapse of collective responsibility within this coalition Government. We therefore do not accept the very brief time the Government propose to allow the House to debate this important matter.
Shall I put the question?
By way of explanation, I find it difficult to understand the attitude of Deputy Bruton and his party on this matter. This is normally a matter which is dealt with expeditiously by the House. We offered two hours to debate the matter——
It took the Taoiseach 100 days to decide.
——and on receiving representations from the parties opposite, we extended that to three hours. My understanding was that that was regarded as satisfactory by the parties opposite. I see the Leader of the Labour Party nodding his head, no doubt because, as I understand it, that arrangement was acceptable to his party. We have a lot of business to do and, as Deputies are always complaining that we do not get the time to deal with legislation, I put it to you, Sir, and to Deputy Bruton that three hours, with 20 minutes each for Party Leaders, is adequate to discuss this matter.
It is completely unsatisfactory that the Taoiseach and his party should want this House to dispose in just two hours of a matter on which it took the Taoiseach two months to make up his mind.
Question put: "That the arrangements proposed by the Taoiseach for dealing with Item No. 7 be agreed to."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 73; Níl, 43.
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Ellis, John.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Flood, Chris.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hillery, Brain.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kelly, Laurence.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brain.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McDaid, Jim.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
- Cullimore, Séamus.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Morley, P.J.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael J.
- (Limerick West).
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- O'Toole, Martin Joe.
- Power, Seán.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Roche, Dick.
- Smith, Michael.
- Stafford, John.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl
- Ahearn, Therese.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Belton, Louis J.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Carey, Donal.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Cotter, Bill.
- Creed, Michael.
- Crowley, Frank.
- Currie, Austin.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lee, Pat.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Paul.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael.
- (Limerick East).
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- Owen, Nora.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
- Yates, Ivan.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies V. Brady and Clohessy; Níl, Deputies Flanagan and Boland.
Question declared carried.
An Taoiseach.
Tairgim.
Are we still on the Order of Business?
I think the Order of Business has been accepted.
There are matters I would like to raise on the Order of Business. What we have approved is the order for dealing with debate on the appointment of a Minister. I simply wish to raise a point on the Order of Business.
On my understanding of it, that has already been disposed of. If the Deputy has a question which refers to promised legislation I will be happy to listen to it.
My question relates to two matters. One is the matter which has been on the Order Paper now for some months, items No. 14, which is the proposal to approve the ACP-EEC Convention, commonly known as Lomé IV which requires the approval of this House. The proposal has been on the Order Paper for some time now and I want to know when it is proposed to take that motion and have it debated in the House.
The second item I want to raise is whether the Taoiseach intends to make a statement in the House with regard to the comments of the Secretary of State, Mr. Brooke, relating to the talks——
Deputy De Rossa appreciates that his second request is not in order on the Order of Business.
I appreciate that it may not be entirely in order but the Taoiseach has on previous occasions responded to questions with regard to statements on urgent——
If that is so it would not be the intention of the Chair to perpetuate that precedent. Deputy De Rossa knows as well as I do that it is not in order on the Order of Business.
(Interruptions.)
I am sure, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, that you are not seeking to rule out the possibility that the Taoiseach might like to make——
In answer to your first question.
The question of the Lomé Convention Agreement is a matter which can be discussed by the Whips who can decide when it can be taken. Indeed, it could be taken much earlier and more expeditiously if the Fine Gael Party in particular would stop wasting our time with needless votes.
Uno duce, una voce may apply to that side of the House but not to this side.
(Interruptions.)
Members should take it in good part.
May I seek clarification from the Taoiseach on a matter which has been raised here previously, that is, the question——
Would Deputy Spring help the Chair and state whether this refers to promised legislation?
Sir, this does not refer to promised legislation. It refers to a matter properly before the House, on the Order of Business, that is the matter of a committee of this House. It refers more directly to the question of setting up a committee on foreign affairs. The Taoiseach informed the House just before the Christmas recess that he was going to have some discussions with the then Fine Gael spokesperson on Foreign Affairs, Deputy Barry, and subsequently informed the House that he was having further considerations. At this stage can the Taoiseach say whether he intends setting up a committee on foreign affairs and whether he will have discussions with the Opposition spokespersons on foreign affairs or, indeed, with the Leaders of the Opposition parties?
I propose to discuss the matter with all parties. That process will begin immediately.
Would the Taoiseach consider making time available for a discussion in the House on the position in regard to the Brooke talks? I understand that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has made a statement in the last few minutes to the effect that these talks are at a point of failure.
I have already indicated to Deputy De Rossa that, while matters of that kind, however important, are not relevant to the Order of Business, there is a process by which such an arrangement can be pursued and made if regarded as necessary. Deputy Bruton will appreciate that that is the position that has obtained as long as he has been a distinguished Member of this House.
Thank you, Sir, I do appreciate it and appreciate your position in the matter as well. But I would say that the fact that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has stated that these talks are at the point of failure is a serious matter and we should have an opportunity to discuss it.
I think the best way any Deputy can show his appreciation of the Chair's difficulties is to obey him.
Can the Taoiseach say when the legislation promised in regard to product liability will be circulated? Is he aware that this should have been on the Statute Book since July 1989 as a result of an EC Directive on the matter? How long more must we await it?
The shortest possible period of time. It is on the list of legislation that we propose be taken as soon as possible.
Can the Taoiseach indicate whether that will be within this session? Again in regard to the equally long promised and overdue Patents Bill — seeking to implement an international convention of the EC — can the Taoiseach say when that legislation is likely to be before us? Can he say whether the constitutional and other difficulties with regard to the Patents Bill have now been ironed out?
Yes, they have. There are only drafting difficulties still extant. We hope to take it this session.