Vol. 409 No. 8
It is proposed to take Nos. 2, 3, 7, 8 and 9. It is also proposed, subject to the agreement of the House, that all proceedings on Nos. 7, 8 and 9 shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, at 12 noon, 1 p.m. and 5 p.m. respectively by one question in each case.
If a division is demanded today, such division shall be taken at 8.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 19 June 1991.
Are the proposals for dealing with Nos. 7, 8 and 9 agreed?
In relation to item No. 9, the motion regarding the Criminal Justice Act, 1984, which it is proposed to conclude at 5 p.m., that effectively means that it starts at 1 p.m. and concludes at 5 p.m., giving something around two hours to the debate on a crucial renewal of the sections of the Criminal Justice Act which should require a major debate in this House because they touch on fairly crucial areas of the rights of the accused in relation to how they are treated in Garda stations and in court. In the absence of a committee on crime this House should be enabled to have a debate on the issues surrounding these sections. Therefore I am opposing the guillotine on item No. 9.
The worries of The Workers' Party in this area are difficult to understand considering that the leader of The Workers' Party did not regard last night's debate on An Post as being sufficiently——
Please, let us not bring in extraneous matters.
——Important in this House. In trying to save 100 jobs, if the parties of the Left had been here last night we could have pressed the issue and the Government would have been made to respond in a more coherent way.
The Workers' Party want more time but they cannot be here to debate the real issues.
What about the 13 pairs?
Let us hear the Taoiseach.
Deputy Shatter has been the cause of serious disruption on the Order of Business this morning——
I apologise.
——and he should desist forthwith.
The only thing I feel compelled to say is — not in front of the children, please.
There should be some way of keeping these unruly Fine Gael TDs in order. They are a disgrace to the House.
I am putting the question that the proposal for dealing with No. 9 in respect of the Criminal Justice Act, 1984, be agreed.
Is the proposal for the postponement of any divisions called for today to next Wednesday agreed? Agreed.
With the pairing system, we have no problem with that.
Will the Taoiseach agree to fulfil the promise he made in this House for a debate on EC affairs before the European Summit in view of the fact that the ESRI have stated that Commissioner MacSharry's proposals to reform the CAP will cost this country £700 million a year and several thousand jobs and in view of the fact that President Delors has indicated that he is not prepared to support a fund for smaller countries? Would the Taoiseach agree——
Let us have regard to that which can and which cannot be raised on the Order of Business.
Would the Taoiseach agree——
I have grave doubts about the matters raised by the Deputy in that regard. I am not aware that there is legislation involved or that legislation has been promised in this House in connection with the matters.
On a point of order, can I have an opportunity to endeavour to persuade the Chair that this is in order on the Order of Business? The Taoiseach gave a promise that he would have a debate on this matter of EC affairs in this House.
It still does not——
I am asking, in view of the imminence of the Summit and the important issues that are now arising in the European Community affecting the livelihoods of people here, will the Taoiseach agree to have this debate before he goes to the Luxembourg Summit so that he can have the views of all the Members of this House on these crucial matters affecting the livelihoods of people here?
Matters pertaining to statements by the Taoiseach or any Minister are primarily matters for Question Time proper.
This is a promised debate in this House.
In relation to the promised debate on EC matters, the Minister for Finance had a meeting with three other EC members, the poorer countries, on Monday last. It appears that their efforts have been rather unsuccessful, given the statement of President Delors yesterday. Will the Taoiseach or the Minister for Finance say if this House will have an opportunity to discuss the question of Structural Funds or the lack of them, according to President Delors yesterday? The Taoiseach has come before the House saying that there will be Structural Funds available in the future. It would appear that this is now off the agenda in Europe. We should have a debate on that.
The Deputy misinterpreted the situation. The President of the Commission, Jacques Delors, was talking about different matters. He was talking about compensation arising from the EMU. On the broader issue, I shall be reporting to this House on the Luxembourg Summit and on that occasion Deputy Spring may raise any of these matters.
Would the Taoiseach not agree that at that stage there would be a fait accompli. The Taoiseach will have gone to the Summit without having the benefit of the views of the Members of this House.
It should not give rise to a debate this morning.
It would make far more sense for the House to express their views beforehand.
A Cheann Comhairle——
Deputy Proinsias De Rossa. I will call the Deputy again, if necessary.
I wish to remind the Taoiseach that on a number of occasions in the House he and the Minister for Foreign Affairs indicated that there would be a wide-ranging debate on questions arising from the IGCs on EMU and political union and that these debates were to have taken place this session. Will the Taoiseach indicate when he proposes to have those debates? It was suggested before by you, a Cheann Comhairle, that this matter should be raised with the Whips. However, we have raised it at Whips meetings and the Government Whip indicated that he does not have responsibility in the matter and that he has not been informed by the Taoiseach in relation to it. When will we have this wide-ranging debate, not a series of statements?
I do not think I committed myself to having the debate this session. I accept that as both IGCs proceed it will be important for us to have a wide-ranging debate on it. However, as I already indicated to the House, I do not believe that enough progress has been made to enable us to have a satisfactory, substantial debate. I anticipate that the Summit in Luxembourg will probably be confined to reporting progress on the IGCs.
I again urge the Taoiseach to have the debate before the end of this session, if possible. It is a matter that warrants consideration because of the importance of European matters to this country and the obvious consequences of statements made by the President of the Commission yesterday. On another matter, in relation to the statement made by the Minister for Finance yesterday regarding decentralisation, would the Taoiseach say if consultation will take place, even at this late stage, because it is very obvious from the response to the Minister's statement that there was no consultation prior to the announcement?
That is clearly not a matter for the Order of Business.
It is one for the local elections.
It is playing with the lives of civil servants.
I could say "not in front of the children". Given the nature of the announcement, is the Taoiseach satisfied that all Government Departments have been consulted? It is obvious that civil servants or their unions have not been consulted.
This matter must be raised at a more appropriate time.
Have the Departments even been consulted? Senior people were not consulted.
I appeal to the Taoiseach to consider that there is not much point in having a debate on EC matters after decisions have been taken. Surely it makes sense to allow Members of this House — to strengthen the Taoiseach's hand in going to these discussions — to come to a unanimous view before the decisions are taken?
All the indications are that the crucial decisions will not be taken until much later this year and we have ample time before then to have a worthwhile debate. I am not trying to deprive the House of an opportunity to debate these matters; I welcome that debate and I have promised it. However, my view at this stage is that there is not sufficient substance there at the moment. The direction in which the IGCs are going is not yet sufficiently clear for us to have a worth-while debate.
Surely we should be allowed——
This matter cannot be debated now.
Surely this House should be allowed to influence the direction of the IGCs?
I must dissuade Members from the notion that this matter may be debated now. It may not. Deputy Rabbitte is offering.
With regard to the proposal to decentralise civil servants——
I have ruled that matter out of order.
I wanted to know if the Taoiseach had any plans to decentralise nurses and other staff to Tallaght Regional Hospital.
The Deputy is now making a mockery of the Order of Business.
It is part of rationalisation.
I am calling Deputy Gay Mitchell.
You have already ruled on the matter which I wished to raise.
Will the Taoiseach say whether the proposed Committee on Crime and the proposed Committee on Foreign Affairs are to be proceeded with in tandem or whether they will be decoupled? The proposals, which have repeatedly come before the Whips, sought to establish both committees.
This has been a recurring matter on the Order of Business.
I dealt with that on a number of occasions.
With respect, a Cheann Comhairle, the Taoiseach said he had dealt with this matter before, but it is an item on today's Order Paper. The way it was dealt with before was by a wave of the Taoiseach's hand. When will each of these committees be established? Is it still the Government's intention to establish both committees or have one, or both, been dropped? It is a simple question.
I already indicated to the House — the Deputy was not here as he was probably desperately fighting to hold on to his local authority seat——
He is running as an Independent.
I understand that the Deputy has quite a serious problem in that regard.
Not as many problems as the Taoiseach has.
Why did the Opposition dump the lady?
The Committee on Crime is likely to be taken next week.
What about the lady's brother?
Order, please.
I want to raise an entirely different subject. For some 12 months now the Government have had a report on the position of Dublin Zoo. Will a statement be made by the Taoiseach in the House before the local elections as to the future steps to be taken to provide Dublin Zoo with the additional lands they need——
Matters appertaining to Dublin Zoo will have to be raised at a more appropriate time.
Where are the real animals?
