It is proposed to take Nos. 13 and 3. It is also proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that: (1) Business shall be interrupted at 7 p.m. tonight. (2) No. 13 shall be decided without debate. (3) A statement on the European Council meeting in Maastricht on 9-10 December 1991 and the bilateral meeting last week with the British Prime Minister shall be made on the conclusion of the proceedings on No. 13 and until 12.45 p.m.; the statement of the Taoiseach shall not exceed 40 minutes and the statement of each other Member called on shall not exceed 30 minutes. (4) The proceedings on all Stages of No. 3, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 7 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. (5) The Dáil shall meet tomorrow at 10.30 a.m. and shall adjourn not later than 4 p.m. (6) The following arrangements shall apply tomorrow in the debate on No. 14: (a) The speech of the spokesperson for each of the groups, as defined in Standing Order 89, shall not exceed ten minutes and (b) The Minister for the Marine shall be called on at 11.25 a.m. to make a speech in reply not exceeding five minutes. (7) Subject to No. 13 being agreed, the following arrangements shall apply tomorrow in the case of the Supplementary Estimates to which the time refers: (a) Vote 33 shall be decided without debate. (b) The questions necessary to bring the proceedings on Votes 26, 32 and 41 to a conclusion shall be put not later 12 noon, 2 p.m. and 4 p.m. respectively. (c) In the case of Vote 26, the opening speech of the Minister shall not exceed ten minutes and the speech of each other Member called on shall not exceed five minutes. (d) In the case of Votes 32 and 41, the speech of each member called on shall not exceed 20 minutes; the Minister of State may be called on a second time to reply to the debate and the speech in reply shall not exceed ten minutes. (e) Any division demanded tomorrow shall be postponed until 6.45 p.m. on Wednesday next. (8) At the conclusion of business tomorrow the Dáil shall adjourn until 12 noon on Tuesday next, 17 December 1991.
Order of Business.
May I now ask, in relation to these various proposals, if it is agreed that business be interrupted at 7 p.m. tonight? Agreed. Is it agreed that No. 13 be decided without debate? Agreed. Are the proposals for dealing with the statement by the Taoiseach agreed?
I wish to object, not by means of a vote, that there is no equality of time between the party Leaders in this debate. I also regret that provision has not been made for a ministrial reply to any points made, in view of the fact that parliamentary questions on this subject have been ruled out of order in anticipation of this debate. There will be no reply to this debate. Further, it might be appropriate to include a report on the bilaterial meetings the Taoiseach has had with each of the Prime Ministers he has met, not just one, namely, the British Prime Minister.
May I take it the Deputy is not challenging the proposal?
I am not.
I would like to make two points. First, the time allocated for this topic is far too short. I wonder if the Taoiseach would indicate at some stage whether or not he proposes to have a more detailed debate on the conclusions reached at Maastricht. May I also draw attention to the fact that I have been led to understand by the spokes-persons of the other parties that it is unlikely we will reach this topic until 11.10 a.m.? This means that no spokesperson for The Workers' Party will be able to contribute to the debate, if it concludes at 12.45 p.m. I am asking that the time limit of 12.45 p.m. be deleted or that some arrangement be made to ensure that the Government, Fine Gael, the Labour Party and The Workers' Party spokespersons get their full time.
It is not the intention that The Workers' Party should be denied an opportunity to contribute. There is no such intention. I suggest that we let the statements go ahead to see how it goes and that we be flexible about the timing.
Is that satisfactory?
A Cheann Comhairle, I hope I did not imply that the Government were trying to stop me from speaking. I was just pointing out, due to the way business will run this morning, that if the time limit remains as it is and is applied I will not get an opportunity to contribute.
The matter rests in your own hands.
I understand from the Taoiseach now that there will be some latitude in that regard and that we shall not be confined to 12.45 p.m. The intention is to ensure that all party spokespersons are afforded an opportunity to speak on this matter.
I would very much like to support the point made by Deputy De Rossa——
I think that has been satisfactorily resolved, Deputy.
He made more than one point, a Cheann Comhairle.
I thought he was primarily concerned about the time factor.
It was indicated in a letter that I received from your own office yesterday that the questions I had put down to the Minister for Foreign Affairs were being deferred because they anticipated a debate on Maastricht.
That was not Deputy De Rossa's point.
It is not a debate. Neither are the questions being answered.
That is the usual procedure, Deputy.
The Deputy is hard of hearing.
He is being selective.
May I now ask if the proposals for dealing with No. 3 are agreed?
Last Thursday evening the Whips met and agreed on the programme of business for this week. The Government Whip on Friday, unilaterally, introduced this Bill. The business of the House cannot progress if the Government ride rough shod over the Opposition in that regard. We object to the proposal that this Bill be taken now for that reason. It is not good parliamentary practice to come to an agreement on a Thursday afternoon and to throw it aside on the Friday. No progress will be made in the House if the Government insist on adopting that attitude? No. 3 is the Industrial Development (Amendment) Bill, 1991.
Is the Deputy challenging it?
Yes.
We also object to the proposal that No. 3 be taken in this manner because, as Deputy Barry has correctly outlined, there was no agreement. It was brought out on Friday. This is not the way to do business. At a time when there are 260,000 people unemployed, it is ludicrous to bring in this Bill.
I shall put the question then.
Excuse me, Sir——
You did ask that the question be put.
Are the Government not going to reply to the points made? This Bill will abolish the only State venture capital body.
The usual procedure is that when a matter of this kind is challenged the question is put. I am putting the question now.
On a point of order, there may be a good reason — which we have not heard from the Government — for their——
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughian, Mary Theresa.
- Cullimore, Séamus.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Flood, Chris.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kelly, Laurence.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Morley, P.J.
- Noonan, Michael J.
- (Limerick West).
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- 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.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl
- Ahearn, Therese.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Belton, Louis J.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Carey, Donal.
- Connor, John.
- Creed, Michael.
- Crowley, Frank.
- Currie, Austin.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lee, Pat.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McCartan, Pat.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Paul.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael.
- (Limerick East).
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Finucane, Michael.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Garland, Roger.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Philip.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Gerry.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Reynolds, Gerry.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Sheehan, Patrick J.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Yates, Ivan.
Is the proposal for tomorrow's sitting agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 14 agreed? Agreed. Subject to No. 13 being agreed, are the arrangements for dealing with the Supplementary Estimates for tomorrow agreed?
I would like to know whether the Government have any intention of providing an additional Estimate for the Department of Agriculture and Food to ensure that the Teagasc research institutes which are on the point of being closed will be kept open.
The Deputy is introducing a new matter.
The Teagasc board are meeting this morning to decide on the closure of these institutes.
I take it that the proposal for dealing with No. 13 is agreed.
Will the Taoiseach tell the House if additional moneys will be provided for this matter?
The matter can be pursued in another way.
The Minister, Deputy Kirk, seems to think that money will be provided. He said so publicly.
Is it agreed that at the conclusion of business tomorrow the Dáil shall adjourn until 12 noon on Tuesday next?
I wish to signal our concerns that this is a matter that was not agreed by the Whips. In order that it is not laid down as a precedent for future reference I would like an assurance that these matters be discussed and agreed by the Whips before agreeing them in the House.
The normal procedure is that the following week's business be agreed by the Whips. We are meeting at 11.30 a.m. to discuss next week's business and, as a matter of courtesy, the Order for that business should not be put to the House in advance of that meeting. There is no difficulty in accommodating the Government with an early sitting, as we did this week, but as a matter of courtesy it should be subject to agreement.
We are only deciding the sitting here.
Yes, but at 12 noon, which is earlier than the normal time.
That matter was voted on last night.
The time was not voted on.
The only issue voted on last night was to take Committee Stage of the B & I Line Bill. No specific time was decided.
Are the Deputies objecting to sitting at 12 noon?
I will repeat for the benefit of the Taoiseach that we have no difficulty in accepting the proposal, but as a matter of courtesy we should not order business that we are about to discuss in 20 minutes.
We are not ordering business; we are only ordering the sitting.
As a matter of courtesy, these matters have always been arranged by agreement with the Whips.
Bring back Bertie.
The proposal is that the Dáil shall adjourn——
Deputy Vincent Brady is beginning to look very good.
Order please, Deputies. The proposal is that at the conclusion of business tomorrow the Dáil shall adjourn until 12 noon on Tuesday next. May I take it that that is agreed?
It is agreed with reservation.
I wish to ask three questions all of which I hope are in order. May I ask the Taoiseach, in view of the fact that the President of Ireland has been in office for 12 months and has indicated on a number of occasions a wish to address this House, if the Government would indicate a willingness to make arrangements for such an address? It would be a very good and unifying act on behalf of the Government and the country.
Deputy Bruton must know that it is a long standing convention that reference to our President ought not be made in the House.
I think it is fair to say that the House must make arrangements for this constitutional provision.
It might be done in a more discreet manner.
There is no way in which such an arrangement could be envisaged in the Constitution.
This is a delicate matter and I wish the Deputy would desist.
On a point of order, it is impossible to make the constitutional arrangement for a presidential address without discussing the person who is going to give the address.
There are other ways of doing so. I am ruling the matter out.
What other way? This is precisely in order.
No, it is not in order, and long standing convention indicates that.
Not in regard to this constitutional provision. May I ask the Taoiseach if the Government have yet made a decision on the Estimates and if they will be presented to the House next week as indicated previously? Have the Government come to any conclusion as to when the Dáil will go into recess and for how long?
These are matters that have been raised continuously in the House.
Could we have an answer?
We are entitled to some information on the Estimates, whether a decision has been made on them and whether it is likely that they will be debated before the House rises for the Christmas recess.
I have dealt with this matter on a number of occasions.
I know the Taoiseach has dealt with this matter and perhaps he feels that he has dealt with it satisfactorily, but it is our democratic responsibility to debate the Estimates in this House. Is he now in a position to tell the House whether the Estimates will be published on Monday so that a debate can proceed as intended on Wednesday and Thursday? That is the question, and it has not been dealt with.
The Book of Estimates will be published as early as possible.
That sounds ominous.
Have the Cabinet agreed the Estimates?
Are the printers holding them up?
I have a number of queries for the Taoiseach. Earlier, I asked whether the Taoiseach proposed to have a more detailed debate on the Maastricht conclusions and if he will indicate when that might take place? Given that the final legal text will have to be signed by the Heads of State some time in early February and that we are unlikely to resume until the end of January, given normal procedures, I wonder when a detailed debate on this will take place? Will the Taoiseach indicate the date of the budget? Is it intended to have it earlier then the usual time, at the end of January, or is it proposed to resume earlier in January in order to deal with it? My final point, a Cheann Comhairle — if I am not straining your patience too much — relates to promised legislation. On a number of occasions the Taoiseach promised that the family planning Bill would be dealt with before the Christmas recess but it is now extremely unlikely that it will be introduced next week, although the Taoiseach might surprise me. Will the Taoiseach indicate the earliest date on which it is intended to deal with that Bill in view of its implications for health?
The latter matter appears to be in order but I am doubtful about the other matters.
I accept that it is probably necessary for the House to have further discussions on the outcome of Maastricht because today we are having the normal statements procedures and there is a great deal of documentation that has to be made available to Deputies. It is something we will have to consider in the new year. As the Deputy knows, we will be bringing out a White Paper as soon as possible on the various aspects of the agreement and whether we might wait for that and have our discussion on the basis of the White Paper is a matter that we can consider.
When is that likely to come about?
We will try to bring forward the White Paper as early in the new year as possible. It is now almost definite that we will not be able to take the family planning Bill before Christmas, we have not time for it.
Given the complexities of the conclusions reached at Maastricht, may I suggest to the Taoiseach it would now be in order to appoint a foreign affairs committee of this House. They would have the opportunity during the month of January——
This matter has been repeatedly raised here.
A commitment was given that the committee would be set up by this House and I wonder if the Taoiseach has changed his mind on that, or will it be set up before the recess?
Both committees will be set up as soon as possible.
May I ask the Taoiseach what that means?
This should not give rise to argument.
On a point of order, Sir, it is ridiculous to say "as soon as possible".
We have been hearing this since 1987.
I cannot and will not allow the Order of Business to be turned into a mini Question Time.
The establishment of a committee is a matter for the Order of Business. We are not asking about a new committee but the transformation of the existing Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities and we are being repeatedly told by the Taoiseach that it will be set up as soon as possible. My question to the Taoiseach is: what does "as soon as possible mean"? There is a commitment in the Joint Programme for Government to set up the committee, so what is the problem?
I have nothing further to add. There is no particular impediment to it being put forward, it is just a matter of being able to find the time to bring it forward.
Does the Taoiseach need any help?
When does the Taoiseach propose to get an appeals board off the ground to deal with matters arising in disadvantaged areas?
That is out of order, Deputy. The Deputy should put down a question in the proper way.
When will the Taoiseach provide extra money for his friend, Mr. Joe Rea the beleagured leader of a farming body——
Deputy Sheehan, please desist.
Is it that the Taoiseach is more interested in partaking of frogs legs and breasts of pheasant in Maastricht?
I call Deputy Doyle.
That is an insult to the Taoiseach.
Will the Taoiseach say when it is intended to introduce the housing Bill which will give legal force to the concept of joint ownership. The Minister for the Environment promised a few days ago in the House to introduce it.
It will be brought forward as early as possible in the New Year.
Is the Taoiseach aware that the Select Committee on Crime requested through the Whips an amendment to the draft rules governing the operation of the committee, including the power to engage consultants, so that we can produce proper reports?
That should be raised in the appropriate manner.
Is the Taoiseach aware that we have not received a response in respect of this request and that as a result the committee are not functioning properly?
That is hardly relevant now Deputy, we will now deal with the Supplementary Estimates.
A Cheann Comhairle——
I am sorry Deputy it is not in order now.
What is in order?
The Deputy might put down a question on the matter.
I am sorry, but the Taoiseach was about to answer. I do not wish to be out of order, but how can the committee operate?
The Chair will not be challenged in this fashion. I am now proceeding to item No. 13.
Mr. Barrett
The Taoiseach was offering.
Deputy please do not put yourself completely out of order. The Deputy has had some latitude. He has raised a matter which has no relevance to the Order of Business. I must ask the Deputy to desist and resume his seat.