It is proposed to take Nos. 2, 9, 10 and that No. 11 shall be taken at 3.45 p.m. It is also proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that: No. 2 shall be decided without debate; the proceedings on the Committee Stage of No. 9, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 1.30 p.m. by one question which shall be put from the Chair and which shall, in relation to amendments, include only amendments set down or accepted by the Minister for the Environment; the proceedings on the Second Stage of No. 10, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 2.30 p.m. It is also proposed that the Dáil shall meet tomorrow at 10.30 a.m. and shall adjourn not later than 4 p.m.; and any divisions demanded tomorrow shall be postponed until 6.45 p.m. on Wednesday, 8 April 1992.
Order of Business.
Is the proposal in respect of No. 2, that No. 2 be decided without debate satisfactory and agreed? Agreed. Are the proposals for dealing with No. 9 agreed? Agreed. Are the proposals for dealing with No. 10 satisfactory and agreed? Agreed. Are the proposals in relation to tomorrow's sitting agreed? Agreed.
Will the Taoiseach tell us the present position in regard to promised legislation to convert the Land Registry into a commercial body in view of the serious effect of delays in the registration of transfers of property on employment creation, particularly at this time?
The legislation is still at preparation stage.
Could the Taoiseach give any idea as to when this legislation is likely to be presented in view of the urgency of the matter, which I am sure we agree on?
I will communicate with the Deputy if I have any more exact information.
Is the Taoiseach aware that there are 50,000 transactions in a backlog in the Land Registry at the moment?
It should not give rise to argument now.
I am aware of a problem there, and I will expedite things as soon as possible.
Will the Taoiseach clarify the situation in relation to his discussions with the various party leaders concerning the Government's intention to get an agreed wording to any addendum to the Maastricht Protocol?
The Deputy will have to raise that at a more appropriate time. It is not in order now.
Whether or not it is in order, the House is due an explanation.
I have ruled on the matter. I am sure the Deputy will obey the ruling of the Chair.
The Taoiseach agreed to have consultations with party leaders in the House. These seem to have come unstuck on the basis of a veto from the Fine Gael Party. I just want to know what precisely is going on behind closed doors.
I have ruled on the matter, Deputy.
Do the Government intend to amend the 1990 Companies (Amendment) Act in view of the fact that it has not worked and that the Examiner appointed by the High Court under the terms of the Act, for United Meat Packers has declared that the legislation is flawed and that he cannot carry on?
I am sorry, Deputy Deasy, that matter is not in order now.
It is a matter of important public concern.
There are many ways of raising the matter. I am sure the Deputy will find such a way.
I already attempted to raise it by way of Standing Order 30 this morning and due to a technicality it was ruled out.
It was because it was late.
I just want the Government to respond.
I cannot facilitate the Deputy now.
Do the Government——
I am sure the Deputy heard me.
——admit that the legislation is flawed?
Deputy Deasy, you may not persist in pursuing that matter now. It is not in order now.
This House becomes irrelevant if we cannot raise this matter.
In all the deliberations and considerations with regard to European obligations, has the Taoiseach given any consideration to the Irish Government's responsibility to two important European obligations, one with regard to the provision of a legal aid service and the other with regard to addressing the European Court ruling with regard to the laws on homosexuality?
Deputy McCartan knows the procedure on the Order of Business very well and he must know full well that the matters to which he is now adverting do not arise here.
They do.
Deputy McCartan has a tendency to argue with the Chair.
On both of those matters legislation has been promised. I was about to ask the Taoiseach when the legislation addressing those important European dimensions——
That is not the question the Deputy asked.
It was perhaps a rather long way of leading into it but I was just about to ask it.
Is there any legislation promised in this area?
The legislation mentioned by the Deputy is in the very early stages of preparation.
That is contrary to what the Taoiseach said last week.
A promise was made that a White Paper on European Union would be published early in the new year. The Taoiseach indicated that it would not be held up because of the separate but interlinked discussion on the Protocol. Would the Taoiseach accept that it is necessary as soon as possible to get a serious debate going on European Union? Will he confirm that a White Paper will be published quickly and will not be further delayed because of the separate discussion on the Protocol?
The publication of White Papers and legislation promised are two different matters.
It has been raised here and publication promised by the Taoiseach.
I agree that it was raised inadvertently.
I am anxious to know the up-to-date position.
If the Taoiseach wishes to respond he may do so.
I would ask the Taoiseach to respond because it is very important that a serious debate on the principal issues of European unity should begin as soon as possible.
Deputy John Bruton.
Could I ask the Taoiseach for a response?
I have called Deputy Bruton.
The House will agree that it is important that any amendment to the Protocol be well worded so that the wording does not in itself jeopardise the prospects of success.
Deputy Bruton should tell that to his Deputies.
That is important for everybody to bear in mind. The Programme for Government agreed between the Fianna Fáil Party and the Progressive Democrats stated on page 17 that the Government agreed to the establishment of regional authorities by 31 March 1992. That date was two days ago. Is it still the Government's intention to establish such authorities and has this matter been covered in the ongoing review of the Programme for Government which was agreed to take place every quarter?
The Deputy has a bad memory. Not too long ago in this House I clearly indicated that no legislation would be brought forward immediately to set up these new structures. I said that discussions were continuing in relation to it but that the Deputy could take it that no legislation would be brought forward in this regard at this stage.
Is the Taoiseach aware——
I must dissuade a Member from entering into argument or making long statements.
The Programme for Government indicated that legislation was not necessary and that it could be done under the Local Government Act, 1991. I want to know if the order that was promised will be brought before the House under the existing legislation. It does not require extra legislation.
Let us avoid argument.
Has the Taoiseach read that document?
I said it long ago but Deputies opposite were not interested in hearing.
I am asking a civilised question in relation to promised legislation. The Minister for Agriculture stated publicly on radio and television that he felt it was necessary to amend the Companies (Amendment) Act, 1990. The Taoiseach told the ICMSA that there was an immediate need to amend that Act. In view of the fact that the Act has failed to protect and honour cheques worth £2.25 million owed to 600 farmers, when is it proposed to amend the Act?
My office will be glad to facilitate the Deputy in raising that matter in a proper fashion and at the right time.
Can I ask the Taoiseach if he is prepared to amend the Act?
Two days ago I answered that.
What answer did the Taoiseach give? He gave no answer. He does not answer any questions.
Would the Taoiseach not accept that decision of the Government to close the Irish Productivity Centre is in conflict with the spirit of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress, which was agreed by this House?
I thought the Deputy had something relevant to raise on the Order of Business. I am disappointed.
About a month ago the Minister for Industry and Commerce said that as a result of a court case it was his intention to bring forward a court case to amend the Companies Act. Will that legislation include the point raised by Deputy Deasy and by Deputy Higgins?
Let us not try to circumvent the ruling of the Chair.
I have already stated quite clearly in this House that the Minister for Industry and Commerce is having meetings with the farm organisations in relation to their complaints regarding the specific questions raised by Deputy Deasy. No legislation is promised.
There is. The Minister, Deputy O'Malley, promised it in this House.
He promised it in the west when he flew down to Knock.
When the Minister has concluded his deliberations he will report back to Government. We will then report further to the House.
In view of the uncertainty surrounding the Maastricht debate, will the Taoiseach indicate his intentions with regard to the timetable for the introduction of legislation to give effect to the necessary referendum procedures? Does he still intend it to be before June?
I should like to see the debate between the political parties on this question being brought to a conclusion as soon as possible. I expect the Fine Gael Leader to be in touch with me some time today, if I am to believe in what I hear. I will then try again to arrange a meeting of all the political leaders tomorrow. The Leader of Fine Gael needs time, as he quite clearly stated, to consider the matter before he will be in a position to attend any meeting or to come forward. When he has concluded his deliberations, perhaps today or tomorrow — it is a matter for himself — I will attempt to arrange the meeting I have promised by tomorrow afternoon, if that is acceptable to all the leaders.
All the party leaders?
Yes.
I am trying to find the simple truth of the matter. The Taoiseach has made a statement indicating somewhat obliquely that the Companies Act will be amended. Will he tell us in plain language what he means by that statement? Does it mean that the 1990 Act will be amended?
I have never said it would be amended. The Minister for Industry and Commerce is having deliberations with various interests in relation to it and when he has finished those deliberations I have no doubt he will come to Government with recommendations.
More consensus.
In view of the fact that a recent question on energy was not reached, can the Taoiseach state the Government's intention in regard to the restructuring of the ESB?
The Deputy should put down a question or pursue the matter in a proper fashion.
I did. It was not reached.
Could the Minister for Energy be a little more positive in relation to Lullymore than he was last week?
That matter was debated on the Adjournment yesterday.
When is it the Taoiseach's intention to introduce legislation to extend the powers of the Castletownbere harbour master over the waters of the Berehaven Sound? The Taoiseach's predecessor promised this legislation and it is about time the present Taoiseach honoured that promise.
Is legislation promised in this area?
The Taoiseach was about to answer the question.
I had thought that Castletownbere was taking a back seat to the other deliberations, but I am glad Deputy Sheehan has brought it back into the limelight again.
The Taoiseach is well informed about Castletownbere.
The Deputy is decolonising Bantry.
The authorisation for drafting the Bill has been given by the Government and it will be some time before it is published.
May I ask the Taoiseach when it is proposed to proceed with the RTC and Dublin Institute of Technology colleges Bills, or have they been abandoned? One of these Bills has been at Committee Stage since 11 or 12 December and the other has not been proceeded with at all.
Hopefully they will be dealt with in the next session.