It is proposed to take No. 2. It is also proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders and subject to the agreement of the House, that: (1) business shall be interrupted at 12.00 midnight tonight; (2) the Second Stage of No. 2 shall be taken today and the proceedings thereon shall be brought to a conclusion not later than 12.00 midnight and the Minister for Social Welfare shall be called on not later than 11.30 p.m. to conclude the debate and (3) the speech of each Member called on, shall not exceed 30 minutes. Private Members' Business shall be No. 21.
Order of Business.
Is the proposal that business be interrupted at midnight satisfactory and agreed to?
I should like to express my strong disapproval of the arrangements for this week's business in this regard. This debate should have been taken last week instead of the Dáil taking three days off and then Deputies being required to work until midnight, when we cannot be in complete control of our mental capacities.
The Deputy should speak for himself.
The Deputy's objection is noted. Apart from the comments of Deputy Garland, I take it that the matter is agreed to. I must now ask whether the proposals for dealing with the Second Stage of the Social Welfare Bill are satisfactory and agreed to.
I wish to inform you that my party do not agree to the restriction imposed on the debate on the Social Welfare Bill. The Bill affects the livelihood of up to 40 per cent of the population and it is highly complex, containing many controversial proposals. If the Government order proceeds, only a tiny fraction of Members will be able to contribute their views on the Bill. We object to the proposal.
I am at a loss to understand the Government's haste to have the Second Stage of the Bill through the House by midnight this evening. The Bill is extremely complex and has implications for a large percentage of the population. The Bill was published only on Thursday and most Members received it on Friday. If the Taoiseach wants a reasoned discussion in the House then the Government should make provision for the Second Stage debate to continue until Thursday evening at least. The Labour Party object to the taking of the Bill in such a manner and I am disappointed that the Taoiseach is trying to put it through the House in this fashion.
Before the House adjourned for St. Patrick's Day, I objected to the fact that the House was not to sit last week. Specifically in regard to the Social Welfare Bill, I pointed out that little time would be available for consideration of the Bill once the House resumed. However, I did not expect the Government to attempt to ram the Second Stage of the Bill through in less than five hours. The Bill has 68 pages and more than 60 sections. We are not being given enough time to deal with the very serious restrictions that are being applied by the Minister on people's rights under social welfare legislation. Therefore, I propose an amendment to item No. (2). I move: "That proceedings shall be brought to a conclusion not later than 5 p.m. on Thursday".
On behalf of Independent Deputies, I should like to say it is obvious that insufficient time has been provided to allow for Independent Deputies to contribute to this important debate. I oppose the Order of Business.
I should like to advise the House that the Government do not regard the arrangement as fully satisfactory. Neither does the new Minister. The Bill was circulated on 19 March, in comparison to the last year when the Social Welfare Bill was circulated on 12 March. Most people would agree that that is reasonable in view of the changed circumstances. What was generally agreed in discussions between the Whips on the matter was that, because of the Bill's technical nature, more time should be given to the Committee Stage debate than to the Second Stage debate. As a Result 14½ hours are being devoted to the Committee Stage debate. That compares with the time of six and three quarter hours provided last year for the Committee Stage debate and the eleven and a half hours provided the previous year. What has happened is that the time provided for the Second Stage debate has been shortened and the time provided for Committee Stage has been lengthened. Most Deputies would agree, although I am not saying there was any agreement by the Whips in this regard, that more time was required for Committee Stage. More time has been provided. I am sure all Members recognise that the Bill must be passed by the Seanad by 6 April for implementation.
The initial question was that the proposals for dealing with the Social Welfare Bill contained in items Nos. (2) and (3) on the Order of Business be agreed to. An amendment to that question has been moved by Deputy De Rossa.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 71; Níl, 59.
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cullimore, Séamus.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- O'Toole, Martin Joe.
- Power, Seán.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- 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.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Morley, P.J.
- Nolan, M.J.
- O'Connell, John.
- Roche, Dick.
- Smith, Michael.
- Stafford, John.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Bell, Michael.
- Belton, Louis J.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Carey, Donal.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Cotter, Bill.
- Crowley, Frank.
- Currie, Austin.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Foxe, Tom.
- Garland, Roger.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lee, Pat.
- McCartan, Pat.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- McGrath, Paul.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael.
- (Limerick East).
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Gerry.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Yates, Ivan.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Dempsey and Clohessy; Níl, Deputies Byrne and McCartan.
Question declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
May I ask the Taoiseach when the Government intend to introduce the promised legislation to grant privilege to witnesses appearing before committees of this House?
The legislation to which I think the Deputy is referring deals with privilege and not with the compelling of witnesses. Privilege is required for televising only.
May I ask the Taoiseach again when the Government intend to introduce the legislation to grant privilege to witnesses appearing before committees?
The Attorney General has been asked to have it before Government next week.
Perhaps the Chair could allay the fears and anxieties of any Deputies who might be waiting in anticipation of a vote, that it would appear we will not be having a vote.
(Interruptions.)
Go now or else you will have to stay all night.
That is a nice way for the Chair to treat his colleagues after they have kept him in the job.
Deputies are entitled to every consideration in respect of questions put at this stage, and I appeal to any Member who is not engaged in the Order of Business to listen quietly.
On the Order of Business, may I ask the Taoiseach if he will give time either today or tomorrow to the Minister for Justice to make a statement to the House on the two deaths which occurred in the Prison Service during the past seven days? I find it remarkable that my Private Notice Question on the two suicides was not allowed on the basis that the matter was not urgent. I do not know what could be more urgent than people taking their lives in prison and the danger that more people will do so.
We all share in the sadness of those deaths but the Deputy realises it is not appropriate to raise it on the Order of Business nor is it appropriate to question why any question was not allowed.
Will the Taoiseach give time for the Minister for Justice to make a brief statement to the House on the suicides which occurred and to give an assurance that steps will be taken——
That matter can be arranged by the Whips and I ask Deputy Shatter to allow me to proceed. Deputy Howlin.
I wish to raise two matters, one of which I frequently ask about in the House. Now that we have passed the anniversary of the promise to introduce the Housing Bill, may I ask the Taoiseach when we will have sight of it? We have been promised this legislation weekly for virtually a year. Second, may I ask the Taoiseach the progress which has been made in formulating the terms of reference of a committee on foreign affairs?
In relation to the first question, the Deputy will recall that last week I said the legislation would be cleared at the next Government meeting. The Deputy will be glad to know the legislation was cleared today and it is expected to be published on Thursday or Friday of this week.
There is one house in sight.
I hope Deputies are glad they now have this Bill. With regard to the Deputy's second question, discussions on the terms of reference of the committee are continuing and the Minister for Foreign Affairs expects to complete them shortly.
An Theachta Enda Kenny.
May I——
I will call Deputy De Rossa next.
May I ask the Taoiseach if he is aware that elections to the regional fisheries boards are due to take place in November? Arising from promised legislation, can he indicate to the House when the long promised fisheries co-operatives will be set up?
I do not think legislation is promised but I will inquire into the matter and communicate with the Deputy.
May I ask the Taoiseach when he proposes to bring before the House the proposals in regard to an Oireachtas committee on employment? In view of the apparent difficulties between the Taoiseach, the Fine Gael Party and the Labour Party in reaching agreement in regard to the terms of reference of that committee, would he agree to call the Leaders of the Opposition Parties together to discuss how the matter could be resolved?
I know reference has been made to this matter, but I am not sure it is appropriate to the Order of Business.
It is sub judice.
As I understand it, a promise has been given in the House in regard to the information of an Oireachtas committee on employment. I understand that questions on the Order of Business in relation to matters of that kind are in order. Questions relating to a foreign affairs committee are constantly allowed and are in order.
I do not know whether the regularity of their appearance makes them in order on the Order of Business.
They have never been ruled out of order.
The matter to which the Deputy referred is engaging the attention of the Whips.
We did not have meetings with the Whips.
An té atá amuigh fuarann a chuid. Tha is not my responsibility.
May I clarify a point? Deputy Howlin's question in relation to the foreign affairs committee seemed to be in order. I assume, therefore, that a question in relation to a promised proposal in relation to an employment committee is equally in order.
The Chair is aware that there has been a reference to the special foreign affairs committee. However, the fact that it traditionally established some right to the Order of Business does not mean it will establish a precedent in respect of every other committee which is not appropriate to the Order of Business.
I argue that the question of an Oireachtas committee on employment is equally important as the foreign affairs committee. I cannot recall a single occasion when a question relating to the foreign affairs committee was ruled out of order.
The Chair does not want to argue with the Deputy, the Chair is insisting that matters relating to committees are not in order on the Order of Business, which is the tradition here. If it is the desire of the House that that should change, so be it. The Chair would be delighted to carry out the wishes of the House in that regard. Until such changes are made it will not be regarded by the Chair as being in order to raise matters connected with committees on the Order of Business.
I fail to understand why my question on the employment committee has been ruled out of order. We have heard questions in relation to the crime committee and a whole range of committees on the Order of Business at various times. I am sure the Taoiseach is anxious to indicate what progress has been made in relation to his important initiative.
Until such time as the order changes, I regard it as the responsibility of the Chair to carry out the existing orders. The fact that the Taoiseach — I say this in all deference — might indicate his preparedness to answer does not, ipso facto, make it in order on the Order of Business. Unfortunately, that is the regulation.
The matter has been flogged to death.
If Deputies want an ad hoc system in regard to these matters, so be it.
My last point is that I am drawing attention to your inconsistency in relation to this issue. You allowed a question in regard to a foreign affairs committee but you have ruled a question in regard to the unemployment committee as out of order. I assume, therefore, that the questions will not be allowed in the House in relation to any committees.
Fan go bhfeicimid.
I wish to refer to a legislative issue. In view of the fact that the Minister for Agriculture admitted in the west last week that the Companies Amendment Act, 1990, is seriously flawed in that millions of pounds issued under the protection of the court by the examiner are now owed to farmers, suppliers and hauliers to United Meat Packers, may I have a categoric assurance, (1) that these cheques will be honoured and (2) that any loophole in the legislation will be closed?
That is out of order. The Order of Business is not the time to refer to alleged weaknesses in existing legislation. It refers to whether questions are in order in respect of legislation which has been promised. I ask the Deputy to accept the position.
May I have an assurance that the legislation will be examined?
It is not the time for asking for or giving such an assurance.
It is a legislative matter as a cheque for £28,000 bounced even though it was under the protection of the court. There has been blatant hostility by the Taoiseach in regard to this matter.
Nonsense.
This is not over yet.
Deputy Jim Higgins, an experienced Member of the House and a Whip, is availing of the opportunity to engage in what he knows is not in order on the Order of Business. He may have his reasons for doing so but it is not in order and there are other ways and means by which questions of this kind can be raised.
Having regard to the adverse comment and criticism by the Supreme Court of the Oireachtas in failing to enact legislation on the implications of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution and the indications from the Government since then that such legislation will be introduced, will the Taoiseach confirm that it is his intention to introduce such legislation to regulate termination of pregnancy in Ireland and, if so, when?
Deputy Taylor will appreciate that the origins of any criticism or comment on this House do not change from one person or authority to another. The Chair does not accept that the Deputy's questions are in order in so far as there is no indication of promised legislation——
Yes, there is. In interviews the Taoiseach indicated that there would have to be legislation in this regard.
Deputy Taylor put his question based on a comment made by someone outside the House. He did not say that the Taoiseach had promised it.
He did.
I said that the Supreme Court had criticised this House — and the Oireachtas generally — for failing to introduce this legislation. I am also pointing out that, obviously, such legislation must be introduced. The Taoiseach indicated that there would be legislation——
I have indicated that many persons, agents and agencies outside the House criticise this House but that does not make it in order on the Order of Business.
I did not say that it did, I simply pointed out that such legislation is essential. It will be introduced in this House by the Taoiseach; an organ of the Constitution, the Supreme Court, referred to this and the Taoiseach has given innumerable radio, television and newspaper interviews indicating that the matter would require the attention of the Government. Surely I am entitled to ask the Taoiseach if it is the intention of the Government to do what Chief Justice——
You are perfectly correct in saying that it is a matter for the House. However, it is a matter for the House at an appropriate time and this is not such a time.
There is no appropriate time.
Will the Taoiseach indicate when we will have a debate on the Supreme Court judgment, as promised by him three years ago. The Taoiseach agreed to meet women TDs and Senators in regard to a debate. We have not debated this matter here although it was debated twice in the Seanad, in Holland and in the European Parliament. Many Members of the House have something to say and we are being gagged in that regard.
If the Taoiseach makes a promise to a Deputy or Deputies it can be pursued in the appropriate way. It is not a matter for the Order of Business.
It is how we order time.
On a point of order, if the Taoiseach indicated that the House will debate an issue, is that not a promise of a debate? If so, is it not reasonable on the Order of Business to ask when the debate will take place?
Deputy Shatter asked his question on the hypothesis that the Taoiseach promised a debate to this House.
He did.
Deputy Fennell made the point that the Taoiseach promised to meet lady Deputies.
It was indicated that there would be a debate but in relation to this issue over the last three weeks the Taoiseach has sat there grinning at us like a Cheshire cat. This is a serious issue which was discussed this morning in Cabinet. I think we are entitled to discuss the consequences of the judgment and the Government's proposals to deal with the matter in this House.
There is no need for Deputy Shatter to shout across the Chamber. The Deputy knows there are ways and means by which this matter may be pursued. It is not a matter for debate on the Order of Business.
The Taoiseach should respond.
We should return to the reasonable approach we had taken. May I assure the Taoiseach that we all want to co-operate on this issue. Nobody wants to score points. However, Members want an assurance that we will have the opportunity to discuss this issue. There is no point in having bitterness build up outside the House when Members would be reasonable if they could make their point in the House. I would like an assurance from the Taoiseach that we will have an opportunity to debate this issue soon.
We may get assurances in respect of the deputation from lady Members but my point is that this is not a matter for the Order of Business.
With due respect, Sir, the Taoiseach gave a commitment in this House that the report would be debated. Therefore we are entitled to ask a question on the Order of Business as to when that debate will take place.
The Deputy's statement on his entitlement does not necessarily make his position correct. He is not entitled to pursue these matters in this way. There is a mechanism, by way of the Whips, whereby statements are pursued. That is the way it should be done.
The Chair is closing down the shop.
Open government lasted about a week. We can now wave goodbye to that concept.
I do not change the way we conduct the Order of Business.
The Taoiseach could answer the question on this matter of grave public importance.
He may not. Let us settle the matter once and for all. I know Deputy Shatter is a member of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. That is where he should seek to have the change made. If that committee agree with the Deputy the Chair would be relieved of the embarrassment and annoyance of having to accept on the Order of Business, his interpretation of the rules. I note there are occasions when a Deputy is ready to go for the book, but when the rule does not suit presumes to establish that something that is non-existent is fact. I would be more relieved than the Deputies to have that changed.
Legislation has been promised.
On a point of order, Sir, in view of what you have just said, regarding the Committee on Procedure and Privileges may I ask you, Sir, as the Chair and arbiter of proceedings in the House, is it not the long standing tradition of the practice and procedure in this House that where legislation or debate is promised by the Taoiseach on the Order of Business, the matter can be lawfully pursued by a Deputy on any occasion on the Order of Business?
The Deputy is making one distinction. He is correct in respect of legislation but not in respect of reference to a debate.
Is there legislation promised on this issue?
(Interruptions.)
In the Programme for Government, the Taoiseach is aware there is a promise to review generally the legislation on extradition and that there is also a promise of an interim proposal to meet the requirements of a European Convention. Will the Taoiseach indicate when that interim proposal, which is to do no more than bring the legislation into line with a provision in the European Convention, will be dealt with? I asked the Taoiseach's predecessor about this and he referred to some ongoing discussions and negotiations with our nearest partner. This does not seem to be relevant. It was clearly indicated in the review of the Programme for Government that this proposal would be on the stocks before the end of last year. This is an important matter that I think should be addressed.
The present status of the Extradition Bill is that a general scheme is being prepared in relation to the interim report to which the Deputy refers. I do not have the information available to me now but I will communicate it to the Deputy.