Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 11 Jun 1992

Vol. 421 No. 2

Order of Business.

It is proposed to take Nos. 10, 11 and 4 — Vote 32 — and that No. 4 shall be taken not later than 3.45 p.m. It is also proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that the question necessary to bring the proceedings on Vote 32 shall be put not later than 12 noon tomorrow and the following arrangements shall apply to the debate: (i) the speech of the Minister and of the main spokesperson for the Fine Gael and Labour Parties shall not exceed 20 minutes in each case and the speech of each other Member called on shall not exceed ten minutes; (ii) a Minister of State may be called on a second time to make a speech in reply; (iii) a Minister or Minister of State shall be called upon not later than ten minutes before the conclusion of the debate to make a speech in reply which shall not exceed ten minutes; (iv) in the five minutes preceding such reply, Opposition spokespersons may request the Minister to clarify specific issues during the course of his reply.

In respect of Votes 1, 2, 7, 8, 9 11-18, inclusive, and 44, which shall be taken tomorrow: (i) the Estimates shall be moved and debated together and decided by one question which shall be put not later than 4 p.m.; (ii) the aforementioned arrangements for debate on Vote 32 also apply in respect of this debate; (iii) if a division is demanded tomorrow or on any Estimate today, such divisions shall be postponed until 6.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 24 June 1992.

May I ask if the proposals for dealing with Vote 32 are satisfactory and agreed? Agreed.

Without disagreeing with item No. 4, there is a reference to questions being put before the Minister replies which the Minister is expected to deal with during the reply. That does not allow for any interchange between Members. The Member has to take it on faith that the Minister will actually deal with the question in reply but if he does not there is no comeback, so to speak. It seems to me when dealing with this in future I would be better either to allow the Minister to reply to the question when it is put, if it is a specific query, or to have the five minutes at the end of the reply so that the questions that are asked will only be in relation to issues that have not been dealt with in the reply and the Minister would actually reply to them there and then. The purpose of this is to have some dialogue about public spending rather than a series of monologues. I believe this proposal does not meet that purpose.

This is a matter for decision by the Whips. The decision which I read out has already been taken but it can be discussed further by the Whips.

I accept that what the Tánaiste has said is correct and has been agreed; I am not questioning the agreement. I am hoping that the House might bear in mind the validity of what I have said in future arrangements.

I take it that the proposals for dealing with Vote 32 are agreed. I must now ask if the proposals for dealing with Votes 1, 2, 7, 8, 9 and 11 to 18, inclusive, and Vote 44 are agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for postponing divisions on Estimates called today or tomorrow satisfactory? Agreed.

Deputy Spring rose.

Last night at 8.30 p.m. the House took what might be described as a historic decision, to ask the Government to co-operate with the Northern Ireland authorities in working together to draw up a programme for Structural Funds assistance from the European Community to promote greater trade North and South. I welcome the Government's acceptance of the Fine Gael proposal.

I would like to ask the Tánaiste — and this is in order, the Chair will be glad to know——

I would like to ask, with the indulgence of the Chair, if the Government would agree to a debate before the end of this year, during the preparation of the operation programme, so that the House can review how the Government are implementing the decision taken last night that there would be a North-South dimension to it?

This matter can be considered by the Whips and put on the agenda if it finds favour. I too am very pleased that there is an element of agreement with regard to the cross-Border planning and so on. A great deal is going on in that regard on a voluntary and private basis.

In relation to promised legislation, we have been informed in this House on many occasions by the Taoiseach that a sub-committee of the Cabinet was meeting to bring recommendations before this House in relation to a number of issues dealing with abortion, the right to travel and the right to information. Can the Tánaiste inform the House at what stage the deliberations of that sub-committee are and if there is a possibility of something being published by that sub-committee before the referendum on 18 June?

In regard to the latter part of the Deputy's question, the possibility of publishing anything, I cannot make any comment. However, the sub-committee is working on the problem which was given to it by the Government and has not reported to Government as yet.

May I ask the Tánaiste, who is also Minister for Defence, if he proposes to make a statement to the House today in relation to the report in The Irish Times about the strategic group which has been established by the Irish Army to examine its relationship with the Western European Union?

The matter to which Deputy De Rossa refers is not relevant to the Order of Business.

This is probably the last day on which it can be raised.

It can be dealt with in many other ways, say, by way of Question. It does not arise now.

Thank you, a Cheann Comhairle; I appreciate your advice. This is the last day we have before the referendum to get some clarification of what proposed relationship there is between the Irish Army and the Western European Union.

Deputy De Rossa must obey the Chair. He must desist from any further reference to the matter which has been ruled out of order by me. He has many other ways of dealing with the matter.

May I ask the Tánaiste if he proposes to come before the House before polling day to explain what precisely——

The Deputy has made his point. He must now desist and resume his seat.

——the relationship will be between the Irish Army and the Western European Union and if he can explain——

Deputy De Rossa must resume his seat or leave the House.

Can the Tánaiste explain what possible role the Irish Army have in relation to the Western European Union.

Deputy De Rossa is showing disrespect for the Chair in this regard and it cannot and will not be tolerated.

I am trying to ensure this House does not go into recess for one week without this matter being raised.

Please, Deputy De Rossa. Deputy Deasy was offering earlier.

Is the Deputy not on Rodney Rice's programme on Saturday? He could raise the issue then?

When does the Government propose to lift the ban on the sale of Irish cucumbers?

(Interruptions.)

These are the salad days.

The salad days are here but we cannot use cucumbers.

Could I ask the Tánaiste, as Minister for Defence, if he has in any way been consulted by the Irish Army with regard to the setting up of a special strategic unit——

Deputy McCartan is clearly seeking to circumvent the ruling of the Chair in this matter. I have ruled strictly on it and I will allow no further reference to it.

There is no point in trying to shout us down.

The matter to which Deputy McCartan and his colleague Deputy De Rossa, adverted to can be raised in many ways in this House. I would respectfully suggest he put down a question on the matter.

I hope that if the matter is raised with the Chair later in the day we will be given an opportunity to air it in the House.

My office will be at your disposal in that regard. I am not assuring you of anything.

Today is the last opportunity we will have——

I will look sympathetically at the request.

We need to have this clarified. We have been told that the Irish Army has nothing to do with this issue.

This wrangling with the Chair is not good enough on the Order of Business. I have ruled on the matter. The Deputy should now desist and resume his seat.

I do not wish to wrangle with the Chair but I do think the Government are misleading the people about an issue that relates to NATO.

A Deputy

Rubbish.

It is not rubbish. If it is nothing to do with it why have we got a special investigative unit within the Army? The Minister for Defence should be able to explain that. He should not hide behind the Chair. He is misleading the people on this neutrality issue.

Deputy McCartan, do not reflect upon the Chair in that manner. The issue to which you refer can be easily dealt with in this House. It is not something that arose——

It is. It only arose last night. It was only in the newspapers this morning and this is the last day we have an opportunity to have it clarified.

I think you have got enough mileage out of it now Deputy. I am calling Deputy Quinn.

I am not here to get mileage. I am here to get the truth about the situation and whether Maastricht has to deal with NATO. Why have a special unit within the Army to deal with this matter if it is not an issue? This is the last day we have to have the matter clarified and when I raise it with the Tánaiste he points in your direction. He is hiding behind the Chair on the matter.

No he is not. There is no one hiding behind the Chair in this matter.

I resent your implication.

It is no reflection on you, Sir.

The Chair rules in this House of his own volition only and he is not influenced by anyone.

On a point of order——

No, I have called Deputy Quinn. Is it on the same subject?

In relation to what you said, a Cheann Comhairle, you implied that Deputy McCartan was seeking to get mileage out of this issue by trying to raise it.

A Deputy

He is.

I do not believe that you, a Cheann Comhairle, have a right to make implications of that kind in relation to any Deputy in this House. On a previous occasion I had to ask you for an apology when you made a similar allegation in relation to me. You should withdraw it.

I make no apology for my statement. It is quite obvious to everyone what is going on here this morning.

I do not, unfortunately, possess the same detailed knowledge of armies, official or otherwise, that the two Deputies who raised this question have.

The Deputy had better start learning because he is going to be in the Western European Union.

I do not have that detailed and secret knowledge. I would like to ask a question of the former Minister for the Environment, now the Minister for Justice. Could he, or the Tánaiste, indicate what the position is in relation to the Roads Authority Bill which was initiated more than four years ago and which is an essential part of the Government strategy to spend the Structural Funds to which reference has been made? When will it be enacted?

That will be discussed by the Whips.

In view of the Taoiseach's attendance at the Rio de Janeiro Conference at the moment, may I ask the Tánaiste if the Government have any intention of making provision for the House to take a Supplementary Estimate for the Department of Foreign Affairs concerning overseas development assistance so that the Irish Government can give a lead to other countries by increasing our present pitiful level of assistance to the Third World to mark the conference?

The Taoiseach has answered questions on this during the week and his answers stand.

The Government Chief Whip, and the Minister for Finance, have been good enough to keep me informed of developments on the Bill dealing with the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General. For fear the House might think it has gone off the boil, may I ask the Tánaiste if he will confirm that the Bill will be introduced and will pass in this session?

There are strong hopes that it will be introduced very shortly.

In relation to promised legislation, the Tánaiste will recall from his seafaring days as Minister for the Marine that reports were compiled in relation to the Shannon Estuarial Authority Bill. Have the Government resolved the difficulties between the parties and will this legislation be introduced this session?

I find Deputy Spring's concern for the parties in Government very touching but it is a fact that no legislation has been promised in this House on the Shannon Estuarial Authority.

It was promised.

Let us get on to the business ordered. I am calling Deputy Jim Higgins.

I have a question about the Regional Technical Colleges Bill, 1991 which passed Committee Stage yesterday. In view of the discussion at yesterday's Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party meeting, at which certain assurances were given to Fianna Fáil Deputies, I seek an assurance from the Tánaiste that the Report Stage of the Bill will proceed in the week after next and that no further butchering of the Bill will take place by way of Government amendment.

I thought the House decided on the Report Stage last evening.

I was just going to say that. I am delighted that the Deputy should find such a pleasant place to locate himself as a meeting of the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party and that we are such an open party that he purports to know what went on. Report Stage has been settled and is open to the House. It is my opinion that the Minister of State left many windows open for discussion, debate and decision on Report Stage of that Bill.

Is the Tánaiste aware of concern in relation to the delay in the implementation of the regulations of the 1990 private nursing homes' legislation and could he indicate when those regulations will be implemented?

The regulations do not come under the definition of future legislation.

It is legislation that has been passed but is not effective.

In view of the absence of the Taoiseach, I ask the Tánaiste whether he is aware of the serious threat made by the United States Administration against EC exports, a threat that would particularly affect this country's exports of liqueurs and casein products.

I am sure that Deputy Sheehan will find another way to raise that matter.

What steps are the Government going to take to protect our exports?

Top
Share