It is proposed to take Nos. 2, 9 and 10. It is also proposed, subject to the agreement of the House, that (1) No. 2 shall be decided without debate; (2) the proceedings on the Report and Final Stages of No. 9, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 8.30 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 Industry and Commerce; (3) there shall be no Private Members' Business today.
Order of Business.
I have to put the question in respect of Item No. 2; "that No. 2 be decided without debate". Is that agreed?
Deputy De Rossa rose.
On No. 2.
In relation to (2) and (3), to the whole Order of Business——
Are you objecting to No. (1)?
The reason I am objecting is that we have been prevented from debating a very serious matter regarding the credibility of the Taoiseach's replies to this House.
Please, Deputy, you are circumventing my ruling.
It is also in protest at your ruling out a request by me under Standing Order 143, which I am entitled to make, for the suspension of Standing Orders.
Is it agreed that No. 2 shall be decided without debate?
I propose to write to you on this matter to seek a proper explanation.
I replied to you today and I have nothing further to add. My statement in respect of the matter you raised is categorical.
You will have to reply at a later stage.
Is it agreed that No. 2 be decided without debate?
Deputy J. Bruton rose.
I am on the Order of Business, Deputy.
I know, I am raising a matter on the Order of Business. Deputy De Rossa made the point that it would be inappropriate for us to agree Government business without debate in view of the entirely unsatisfactory nature of the Taoiseach's replies to questions. I concur with that point of view and, therefore, my party will be opposing the taking of No. 2 without debate.
Question put: "That No. 2 be decided without debate".
The Dáil divided: Tá, 78; Níl, 70.
Tá
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cullimore, Séamus.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Flood, Chris.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kelly, Laurence.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Lyons, Denis.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, Jim.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Morley, P. J.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- O'Toole, Martin Joe.
- Power, Seán.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Roche, Dick.
- Smith, Michael.
- Treacy, Seán.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Belton, Louis J.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Carey, Donal.
- Connor, John.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Cotter, Bill.
- Crowley, Frank.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- Ferris, Michael.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Reynolds, Gerry.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, Patrick J.
- Foxe, Tom.
- Garland, Roger.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McCartan, Pat.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- McGrath, Paul.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael.
- (Limerick East).
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Gerry.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Yates, Ivan.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies V. Brady and Wyse; Níl, Deputies Flanagan and McCartan.
Question declared carried.
Is the proposal for dealing with item No. 9 agreed?
You did not deal with (3) which relates to Private Members' Business.
I shall deal with that later, Deputy. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 9 agreed? Agreed. Is it agreed that there be no Private Members' Business today?
I would like to state that the Labour Party object to the absence of Private Members' Business. We have dealt with only one Private Members' item in three weeks, and that works to the disadvantage of the smaller parties in this House.
I take your point, Deputy.
I regret that that has happened this week. As the Deputy knows, we offered a Private Members' time of three hours——
That is correct.
——but I understand that was not acceptable.
Not to us; we agreed to it.
All I can do is try to make it up to you sometime.
May I add our voice also as perhaps the group with the least advantage of all when it comes to Private Members' Business? We feel aggrieved that there has not been Private Members' Business ordered for this week. The Government had indicated to us that we would have the business of an ordinary week maintained on the basis that we would sit on Friday and it was with regret that we learned that the Government would not agree, therefore, to allow Private Members' Business to be ordered on Thursday instead of the other two days of Tuesday and Wednesday. That is where the original problem arose.
We will have the full three hours.
On the Order of Business, may I ask the Taoiseach if he heard the Minister for Finance's broadcast on Sunday afternoon in which he said that it was clear that the Taoiseach has not got the support of his own party? He clearly has not got the support of this side of the House and, therefore, he has not got the support of the entire House and he should resign or, alternatively, ask the Minister for Finance to resign, as he obviously does not have confidence in the Taoiseach.
This is hardly in order now, Deputy, on the Order of Business. I thought Deputy Barry had something relevant to raise.
The Deputy appears to be suffering from a little amnesia. He seems to forget the fact that this House voted confidence in the Government a week ago.
In response to that let me say that subsequent to the hypocritical Fianna Fáil Deputies going through the lobby the Minister for Finance said he had no confidence in the Taoiseach. Therefore, he should resign or the Minister for Finance should resign.
Deputy Barry, you have not recovered since the day Deputy Dukes beat you and you were let down by your own party; you have not got over that.
I thought I heard the Minister for Justice bellow.
Deputy Barry has not recovered since the day he was let down by his own party.
Did the Minister for Justice say something?
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Barry has engendered much heat. Let us have order and decorum.
I think I am right in stating that Deputy Burke is the only person in this House who is charged with the administration of law and order in this country.
That is true.
I am prevailing here just now.
On the Order of Business, Sir, may I ask the Taoiseach why the legislation to amend the Unfair Dismissals Act was not included in the list of legislation promised for this session having regard to the fact that the social partners were promised at a recent CRC meeting that such legislation would be introduced before Christmas?
I will have to look into that matter and let the Deputy know.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): I have a copy of a letter sent by the Taoiseach to my constituency about an extension of a hospital but when I asked him a question about his failure to live up to the promise he passed it on——
I will be glad to help the Deputy if he raises the matter at the appropriate time.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): How can I do so if he made a promise?
May I ask the Taoiseach if he intends to seek the time of this House either this week or next week to announce any Cabinet changes, or is it true that the Minister for Finance and his team coach, the Minister for the Environment, have vetoed the Taoiseach's constitutional powers in this regard?
(Wexford): The Deputy has nothing to worry about.
I heard you were in the running also, two good tulips.
The Taoiseach indicated that he would allow for a debate on political and monetary union to be taken on a Friday. Will he indicate on which Friday he proposes to have that debate? Will he indicate also when the Family Planning Bill will be published and circulated?
There seems to be an outbreak of amnesia over there. The Family Planning Bill has been published.
The Taoiseach forgot a few matters here and there.
On the question of a debate, I am anxious to facilitate Deputies and there is no difficulty about holding a debate, it is just a question of when it could be most effective, whether it is better to move nearer to the Maastricht Summit or at this stage. I think it is better to wait another few weeks.
In response to the Taoiseach's offer of such a debate, are the Government in a position to state their opening position in respect of the Maastricht Summit which will take place about 40 days from now so that we could debate the position the Government will take on our behalf? The debate should take place only when we have a clear statement in advance and not a series of statements on the floor of the House. The Government would facilitate proper debate by circulating in advance the Government's position in relation to European political and monetary union. We should have a debate on it perhaps a fortnight before the Summit.
The same as every other country does.
I am surprised at the Deputy. I think that would be very foolish because, as the Deputy knows, the negotiations with regard to Maastricht are probably the most intense and confrontational that there have been for a long time. I think it would be most unwise for the Government in the middle of these negotiations to declare their position on a whole variety of issues which are still in the melting pot.
On the contrary, a debate on such matters — the Government's negotiating position would be reinforced by having the support of this House — would be the wisest course of action. Rather than weakening the Taoiseach's hand it would strengthen it in relation to the matters that concern him.
Is it not the case, Sir, that every other Parliament in the European Community is having such a debate in advance of the Maastricht Summit? Is it not the case that the only reason that the Government do not want to have a debate on their policy in preparation for those meetings is, quite simply, that the Government do not have a policy?
That is typical Bruton balderdash.
The Taoiseach has been working on that all night.
The Deputy should permit me to finish. I have promised a debate, so the Deputy's opening statement is incorrect. I have promised this House a debate before the Maastricht Summit and it will be open to every Deputy to give his or her views. What I am suggesting to Deputy Quinn, whom I think is reasonably responsible in these matters, is that it would be unwise for the Government at this stage when everything is still in the melting pot on a wide range of issues and when we still have to negotiate, to put forward any final definitive position.
Another example of the begging bowl policy.
The question is not what the final Government position will be but what the Government's thinking is on the various issues. Presumably in negotiations the Government must be putting forward some position and it would be useful for this House to know what that position is, to debate it and to give guidance to the Taoiseach on how the House thinks.
I gave a very good and full outline of Government thinking, in so far as I could, last July and I am quite prepared to do the same again when we come to our debate. But I think it would be wise for us to leave the debate as near as possible to the Maastricht Summit so that we will have more substance and decisions to deal with than we would have at this stage.
Can we take it that the Government's negotiating position in relation to political and monetary union is as stated by the Taoiseach in July?
The Deputy is trying to confuse the issue. First, he asked me to give an outline of the Government's thinking, not our final position. I said I gave a very full outline of the Government's thinking on all the issues last July.
Is the Taoiseach using that as the basis of his negotiating position?
I think "thinking" would be a misnomer.
The House will appreciate that this is not the time to have these discussions, that the matter has been put and been answered and we should now proceed with the business of the House. Deputy Noonan has indicated that he wishes to raise a matter.
(Limerick East) May I ask the Taoiseach when the Book of Estimates will be published and if he will make a commitment to allow time to have it debated this session?
I indicated earlier — the Deputy must not have heard me — that I cannot yet say when the Book of Estimates will be ready but it is the Government's intention to endeavour to adhere to the practice which we have established of enabling the House to discuss the Book of Estimates before the Christmas recess.
In relation to the promised Bill to reorganise local government at sub-county level, the Minister for the Environment in answer to a parliamentary question said that it would be taken in the next session. When will that Bill be published?
I cannot say yet. It may not be published this session.
In relation to a Bill affecting the same Minister, we have been told for a long time — in fact, over a number of years — that the Building Control Bill will be introduced in the present session. What is the reason for the delay in introducing the Building Control Bill and when can we expect it?
It was passed two years ago.
I shall have a look into that and communicate with the Deputy.
Has the Taoiseach had the chance to clarify the position in relation to the family planning legislation on which his Cabinet appear to be divided, and could he indicate that this will be brought forward at an early date, given that there are court cases pending in relation to matters that are the subject of amendment under the legislation?
I already answered that question last week.
I wish to ask the Taoiseach when we can expect the order for Second Stage of the Milk Agency Bill.
This session; it is on the list.
May I remind the House that we have not yet agreed to item 3.
We have.
On Private Members?
Yes.
Agreed. I have been advised that we had not. We then proceed to the——
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I have indicated several times that I should like to ask a question of the Taoiseach on the Order of Business. In view of the urgency that surrounds the matters, would the Taoiseach ensure that the finalisation or as much progress as possible be made on the Criminal Law (Insanity Verdicts) Bill before the end of this session? That Bill relates to the issue of criminal insanity.
It is not likely in this session, but I do understand the urgency and the Government will endeavour to bring that legislation forth as quickly as possible.
Could it be anticipated that the House will at least have a Second Stage debate on the Bill before the end of the session?
I cannot guarantee that.
In view of the fact that the House has agreed an Order of Business, notwithstanding various matters of significant importance that were put earlier in the day, could I refer the House to a letter that I received from the Ceann Comhairle on the matter of a request made by the Fine Gael Party that an urgent and special meeting of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges be held, that——
Deputy Flanagan——
In reply to——
Deputy Flanagan is an experienced Member of the House——
Let him finish.
No, Deputy Quinn, when the Chair is in need of assistance he is always happy to take it, but not now, thank you.
I live in hope.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Charles Flanagan appreciates that what he is attempting, while meritorious so far as he is concerned, is not in order and I ask him to co-operate with the Chair in not pursuing it.
If you would allow me, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, to proceed and put the matter to you, I wish to specifically quote from a letter received from the Ceann Comhairle which states that the Taoiseach has given him notice — that is, the Ceann Comhairle — of his intention to make a personal explanation on matters, which did not happen because the Taoiseach attempted to answer questions instead of making a personal statement, which is what the Ceann Comhairle was informed was the course of action to be undertaken——
Deputy Flanagan——
And, further, can I quote from the letter, which states——
The Deputy is out of order. The Deputy may not quote.
I have an invitation from the Ceann Comhairle to renew this request——
Deputy, not in the House.
Well, I am renewing it now through you.
Deputy Flanagan, there is a process whereby what the Deputy is attempting can be done in an orderly fashion and in keeping with the best standards in the House. The Deputy knows that what he is doing now is not in order with the Standing Orders that he at times is so happy to quote.
It has been very interesting.
It is not in order with Standing Orders, and I ask you to accept that, Deputy.
The records will show that earlier in the afternoon the Taoiseach was accused of telling lies and that that was not withdrawn. I remember very well a time in the House when I had equal cause to say that the then Minister for Communications had misled the House when in fact he was telling lies. I was asked to leave the House for that. In view of that, I ask that you listen to the request of Deputy Flanagan to refer this matter to——
I am sorry, Deputy, in view of everything I ask you to allow me to proceed with the business as ordered and call Deputy Gay Mitchell on item No. 2.
On a point of order, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I had indicated that I wished to speak on the Order of Business.
I call Deputy Rabbitte on the Order of Business.
I am basically seeking advice from you in terms of how to proceed in respect of a letter that I have received from the Ceann Comhairle explaining——
Deputy, straight away I can answer your question. I do not give pre-emptive advice.
You do not know what is in the letter.
I have heard of a pre-emptive bus strike but pre-emptive advice is something new.
Deputy Quinn, if earlier on I did not give you the answer you might have wished then you will have to bear with me.
You seldom do.
Deputy Rabbitte, the letter you received——
(Interruptions.)
Listen to both sides.
Deputy Rabbitte, the letter you received was from the Ceann Comhairle's Office and I suggest that any elucidation on which you can place the confidence you would like to place in it should be obtained from that office. The advice I give you might not be in accordance with what is the best advice you would get from the Ceann Comhairle's Office. That is all I want to say.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I was not seeking your advice on that issue——
I have given my advice now.
I was seeking your advice in relation to a letter whereby the Ceann Comhairle, in elucidation, replied to me to say that questions I had down concerning recent raids on meat plants were not possible——
Deputy Rabbitte, I am not going to persist. You have asked my advice——
I am asking a question.
Deputy Rabbitte, please resume your seat.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Rabbitte, I am asking you to resume your seat or else I shall ask you to leave, and I shall explain further.
Please, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle——
Please resume your seat.
A philosophical point of view.
Deputy Rabbitte, please resume your seat and I shall explain. I wish to give, and am always happy to give, what I regard to be the best advice possible. On the matter which you have raised I am not the best person to advise you, and my advice is that you wait and discuss the matter with the Ceann Comhairle. There is no better advice and I am not going to tolerate any debate on it.
I take that advice.
Thank you.
The question is how the sub judice rule——
I am not going to discuss that with you. I call on Deputy Gay Mitchell.
The people from the Tribunal have spent the past ten days in the court——
Deputy Rabbitte——
(Interruptions.)
I shall ask you to leave the House, Deputy Rabbitte. If the House gets another interruption I shall tell Deputy Rabbitte that he must leave because we must get on with the business of the House. I call on Deputy G. Mitchell.
I wonder whether I may be permitted one sentence for the information of the House. The 1988 and 1989 reports are in course of preparation. The Committee of Public Accounts would like to see the promised Comptroller and Auditor General legislation published with urgency so that we can bring all our reports up to date.
We should move to item 2.