Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 5 Jun 1992

Vol. 420 No. 8

Order of Business.

It is proposed to take No. 10 (Votes 26, 27, 28, 29, 38 and 39).

There is nothing to put to the House.

Where divorce is concerned in this country there seems to be two laws applicable: one for the rich and one for the rest. May I ask the Taoiseach if the comments which are attributed to him in today's edition of the London Independent——

Please, Deputy Deasy.

——are going to be carried——

I thought the Deputy was going to refer to legislation in that area.

I am referring to legislation which has been promised outside of this House. Can the Taoiseach tell us whether there will be a divorce referendum in 1993 as stated in The Independent and whether there will be a White Paper on the issue before the end of this year? Can we take that as being in order?

In response to the Deputy, I want to reiterate the Government's programme in relation to that matter. I made it clear on numerous occasions in this House — and I have not changed the agenda one iota — that legislation on home ownership will be taken first, that we expect the White Paper on Marital Breakdown to be available later this year and that after the national debate a referendum will take place. I put no time limit on the holding of a referendum.

The Taoiseach does not have any objections to holding it before the next general election if needs be?

Deputy Deasy, please desist.

If that is the most appropriate time.

We are obviously not rushing it.

Let us get rid of the humbug.

The Deputy is getting a straight answer.

Yes, a straight question — a straight answer.

May I ask the Taoiseach if he considers it appropriate that the Minister for Foreign Affairs participated yesterday in a decision which effectively tramples on the rights of the Danish people in terms of excluding Denmark——

Deputy Rabbitte, let us not forget that the Estimate for Foreign Affairs will be dealt with in this House today. The Deputy ought to wait.

I merely want to put a question to the Taoiseach. If, for example, it had been a decision of the French people to reject——

Deputy Rabbitte is going against the ruling of the Chair. Deputy Rabbitte will now resume his seat.

Is the Taoiseach saying we would have proceeded without France——

The Deputy will be afforded an opportunity of ventilating his views on that subject this day.

I am merely asking if we could have proceeded without France, if it was the French people——

That is enough, Deputy Rabbitte. Please resume your seat.

——and the serious implications it has for small countries.

If Deputy Rabbitte does not resume his seat he must leave the House.

May I ask the Taoiseach in respect of promised legislation in the context of the holding of a referendum on abortion and related issues, which he referred to in the House on many occasions and now has told us will take place in November, can he indicate whether it will be related to the holding of a second referendum on the Maastricht proposals?

We do not anticipate a second referendum on the Maastricht question at this stage.

I am proceeding——

Deputy Deasy rose.

I want to get on to the Order of Business proper.

I should like to ask a very brief question. Can the Taoiseach outline to us the duration of his visit to Rio de Janeiro for the environmental conference and the number of Ministers and Deputies who will be present?

That is a matter that can be pursued in the normal way in this House by way of question or motion. It does not arise now.

Deputy Callely rose.

I am proceeding to No. 10. I am going on to the Order of Business proper. I would urge Members to respect the procedure on the Order of Business.

Would the Taoiseach consider it appropriate to send a message of condolence to the families of those people killed in the bus accident in Northern Ireland yesterday evening and good wishes to those who were injured in the crash?

I rise to seek your assistance. I would ask you to bear with me for one brief minute. I have tried on several occasions to raise the matter of the beef tribunal and its legal cost.

Is this in respect of a letter I received from you this morning?

Indeed, I sent——

Will you please afford me the opportunity of replying to your letter?

I thank you for acknowledging the letter I sent to you this morning but there is——

(Interruptions.)

One cannot always put everything one would like in a letter. I would simply say there is huge public concern about the amount of legal costs.

I had to rebuke the Deputy yesterday for rising in a manner which clearly was challenging the ruling of the Chair.

I do not wish to be disorderly. I would simply say that one should now ask whether the scandal is in relation to the beef tribunal or in relation to the legal costs.

I am surprised that the Deputy should take this matter up again, especially in view of the fact that he has written to me and I propose to let him have an early reply to the various matters that concern him.

Thank you very much, a Cheann Comhairle.

(Interruptions.)

As today is the day on which about 150 people in my constituency are likely to lose their jobs and as neither the Minister for Energy nor the Minister for Labour have done anything, I would appeal to the Taoiseach—

Deputy Durkan, this matter was dealt with in the House yesterday.

I appreciate that and I apologise for raising it once again, but nothing has happened. I would therefore appeal to the Taoiseach to intervene even at this late stage before the fate of Bord na Móna, locally and nationally, is sealed. I want to ask the Taoiseach to become involved.

(Interruptions.)

Where is the Minister for Labour? This would not have happened in Deputy Ger Connolly's time.

Top
Share