It is proposed to take No. 8. It is also proposed, subject to the agreement of the House, that: Business shall be interrupted at 6 p.m. today; the proceedings on the Committee Stage of No. 8, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to be conclusion at 6 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 Social Welfare; the Dáil shall meet tomorrow at 10.30 a.m. and shall adjourn not later than 4 p.m.; No. 5, which shall be taken tomorrow, shall be decided without debate; the following arrangements shall apply with regard to the statements on the Culliton report which shall be made tomorrow; the statement of each Member called on shall not exceed 20 minutes; and a Minister of State shall be called upon not later than 3.50 p.m. to make a statement in reply.
Order of Business.
I must put a number of questions on the Order of Business. Is it satisfactory that business be interrupted at 6 p.m. today? Agreed. Are the proposals for dealing with item No. 8 satisfactory?
I am sure the Taoiseach is aware that, in the course of Committee Stage of the Social Welfare Bill, we have now reached discussion on section 7. There are 63 sections in this Bill. I would urge the Taoiseach to give some consideration to the provision of more time since the provisions of this Bill have implications for approximately one-third, or more, of our population. Yet we now propose to conclude Committee Stage between now and 6 p.m. today. That time is inadequate. Probably we will get to about section 10 when the discussion will have to be brought to a conclusion. I would ask the Taoiseach to consider providing more time for Committee Stage.
As I said yesterday, neither I nor the Minister for Social Welfare regard the arrangements as adequate in the context of 1992. I pointed out yesterday that the Second Stage debate had been somewhat shortened to allow the maximum amount of time for consideration of Committee Stage. Committee Stage was allocated 14½ hours as against 6¾ hours last year. The total hours devoted to consideration of the Bill this year are 21¼ as against 16¼ last year. While we do not regard it as satisfactory, the Bill has to be passed by the Seanad and its provisions implemented for the benefit of social welfare recipients by 6 April next. We do not regard it as satisfactory and will take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that this does not recur in the future.
What steps?
We have a new Government and a new Minister for Social Welfare. I might point out that the Bill was published on 19 March this year as against 12 March last year, one week later. Therefore, however the Opposition want to view it——
They are beginning to look like a very old Government.
There is no need for any disorder. Deputy De Rossa is offering.
The people opposite should check their record.
The Taoiseach is giving the impression that he is not in charge of his Government.
No, I am not giving that impression in the slightest.
Let us have order. I am calling Deputy De Rossa.
While it is refreshing that we hear an admission on the part of the Taoiseach in the House that it is not satisfactory to deal with this Bill in terms of the hours allocated to its discussion, this House has a right to decide to allocate more time for its discussion if it chooses. Therefore, I am proposing an amendment to the proposal for dealing with the Social Welfare Bill.
In other words, make sure there is less time.
I am proposing that the debate not be concluded today and that it be continued tomorrow. We have only reached section 7 — there are more than 60 sections in the Bill — and 30 amendments still have to be dealt with. It is not adequate for us to deal with a Bill which affects the lives of so many hundreds of thousands of people in this State in such a peremptory way.
The Deputy has made his point. The Deputy has not put down an amendment as such; he is merely opposing the proposal——
I am proposing that the debate not be concluded at 6 p.m. and that it be continued.
I think it is sufficient for the Deputy to record his opposition, if he so desires. The question is: "That the proposal for dealing with No. 8 by agreed".
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
- Cowen, Brain.
- Cullimore, Séamus.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Flood, Chris.
- Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- O'Toole, Martin Joe.
- Power, Seán.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Foxe, Tom.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Harney, Mary.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kelly, Laurence.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, Jim.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Morley, P.J.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Smith, Michael.
- Stafford, John.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Wilson, John P.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl
- Ahearn, Therese.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Bell, Michael.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, John.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Carey, Donal.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Cotter, Bill.
- Creed, Michael.
- Currie, Austin.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, Austin.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Garland, Roger.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McCartan, Pat.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- McGrath, Paul.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Gerry.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Reynolds, Gerry.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Yates, Ivan.
Are the proposals for dealing with tomorrow's sittings — that the House will meet at 10.30 a.m. and adjourn not later than 4 p.m. — agreed? Agreed. It is agreed that No. 5 shall be taken tomorrow and decided without debate?
This deals with the publication of the Estimates. Last year the Estimates were debated in a few hours and literally billions of pounds were voted through the House at a rate of approximately £100 million per minute. In regard to this year's Estimates, will the Taoiseach say whether the Government have drafted proposals, not only to allow more time for debate but also to allow Ministers to be individually examined on individual subheads of the Estimates for which they are responsible in the form of a committee-style discussion? Otherwise, this House is not carrying out the clear responsibility it has under the Constitution in regard to approving the Estimates.
The idea of having Friday sittings is to ensure that there is more time and an adequate opportunity to discuss the Estimates. As we now have Friday sittings, that will be done. Deputy Bruton's request that consideration should be given to a short question and answer period at the end is being considered in the context of Dáil reform but in the immediate future perhaps the Whips will have a discussion in this regard.
I take it that the proposal is not being objected to?
I do not wish to divide the House again this morning on this matter but I would not regard "a short question and answer period at the end" as an adequate opportunity for Members of this House to query subheads of individual Votes and satisfy themselves that they are performing their constitutional function of ensuring that the people are getting value for money for their taxation.
Obviously, Deputy Bruton must have considered it the proper approach when he was Leader of the House for about four-and-a-half years and had the opportunity to do something about it if he felt so deeply about the matter.
As the Taoiseach is aware, when I was Leader of the House we had a public expenditure committee which his party abolished when they assumed office. The public expenditure committee had the power to quiz individual——
It was the greatest farce I ever saw. I remember Conor Cruise O'Brien going through about ten Estimates at the same time.
Righteous indignation.
Order, please.
Is the Taoiseach aware that Standing Orders were amended in 1986 to incorporate the suggestions made by Deputy John Bruton when I was Government Chief Whip? When Fianna Fáil assumed office they refused to renew the order——
The House will have an opportunity of commenting on the matter when we debate it tomorrow. Are the proposals for dealing with the Culliton report, which will be debated tomorrow, agreed?
Is it possible to ensure that copies of the appendices of the report will be made available to Members of the House? I asked for one in the General Office; they do not have one and seem to have difficulty in getting them. There is only one copy in the Library and if a Deputy takes it there is none for anybody else.
I will have that matter looked into.
We paid enough for it.
Is No. 5 agreed? Agreed.
In the interests of fairness and the ultimate value of the report, will the Taoiseach make arrangements to ensure that the representatives of the former United Meat Packers management are not prevented by lack of funds from being represented at the beef tribunal and presenting their case on the important matter of export credit insurance to the tribunal?
Strictly speaking, this is not relevant to the Order of Business.
It is very relevant to the Taoiseach.
I have ruled it out of order.
It is not the first time that you have pulled the plug on him.
Will the Taoiseach or the Minister for Justice, who is sitting beside him, give a clear indication to the House when the legislation to place the legal aid services on a statutory basis will be taken by the House? Is the Taoiseach aware that at this stage none of the 15 law centres in the country can take on new clients and that in Dublin nobody seeking legal aid or advice will get an appointment until next year? Is it not time that the legislation was taken?
The Deputy has made his point in respect of the envisaged legislation.
The early stages of preparation on legislation in part of the Deputy's question is a matter that can be raised at Question Time.
My question was specific.
I have facilitated the Deputy.
May I ask the Taoiseach when the Government propose to publish the White Paper on marriage breakdown? I understand that the White Paper was promised for last summer by the then Government of which the Taoiseach was a member.
As soon as possible.
What does that mean?
Will the Taoiseach be a little more forthcoming and indicate the timeframe, to use his own word, in which the White Paper will be produced?
More open Government.
It is at an advanced stage, but it has not come to Government yet.
The Taoiseach is developing bad habits very early.
(Limerick East): The same beer, new bottle.
Will the Taoiseach indicate the time scale in whch legislation to regulate the termination of pregnancy in Ireland will be introduced as it is now constitutional and lawful in this country to have a termination? Could he indicate the time scale of this promised legislation?
It is not promised legislation.
The Deputy will have to find another way of raising that matter.
It is a matter of promised legislation. Will there be no legislation and will the present wide open situation continue?
We cannot have a rehash of this matter on the Order of Business virtually every day this week.
Talk to Tom Savage.
It is now constitutional to have a termination of pregnancy in some circumstances in this country and yet this Government remain absolutely dumb and fail to indicate to what extent the matter will be controlled, regulated or dealt with.
No doubt Deputy Taylor will find a suitable opportunity to raise that matter.
This morning we had the effective guillotining of the very important Social Welfare Bill. When will the Taoiseach bring legislation before the House to implement the package of Dáil reform he has spoken about?
No messing with the Taoiseach.
Welcome back.
A Deputy
Is that the first word you spoke since your appointment?
The matter has been adequately referred to and dealt with by one of my colleagues and the matter will be brought to the House as soon as it has been considered.
Arising from the Taoiseach's reply, I will remind him of a commitment entered into by the two parties in Government, and I quote from the review of the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Programme for Government 1989-93 in which on Oireachtas reform, it states:
The parties in Government will present proposals to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges in 1991 for implementation during 1992.
Is the Taoiseach still a signatory to this document?
That was the then Government.
The Deputy can be assured that this matter will be dealt with in 1992.
They were promised in 1991.
What is another year?
What is another 20 years?
The Minister should enjoy the few months he has.
Does the Taoiseach intend to hold a press conference this evening and if so would it be in order for Deputies to attend?
I would not expect Deputy Harte to seek to attend my press conference, but if he joins this side of the House, I will consider it.
A Deputy
Is that invitation being extended to the Taoiseach's colleagues?
Deputies expressed concern about the inadequacy of the time for dealing with the Social Welfare Bill. Let us have regard to that fact.
Does the Taoiseach wish to convey substantial information at his press conference this afternoon? If such is the case, does he not think that in the first instance the information should be conveyed to the House?
I do not know what the Deputy is referring to but if he would like to elaborate perhaps I would then respond.
If it were of real importance the Progressive Democrats would tell us in advance.
Yesterday the Taoiseach said that he would be publishing the Housing Bill in a matter of days. Will the Taoiseach say when it will be published so that we can be waiting for it?
It has been promised for a year.
Will it be today, tomorrow, Monday or Tuesday?
Tomorrow.
I am not sure whether this is point of order or a point of procedure. May I ask the Taoiseach, the Whips and the Ceann Comhairle to take into consideration when ordering the business for next week that some members of staff left this House at 2 a.m. and had to be at work at 8 a.m. and we should have some consideration for the burden we are asking them to bear when we order our business in this extraordinary fashion.
I am proceeding to the Order of Business proper.