It is proposed to take Nos. 13, 7, 24, 14, 8 and 9. It is also proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that (1) Business shall be interrupted at 11 p.m.; (2) Nos. 13, 7, 24, and 14 shall be decided without debate; (3) statements on Telecom Éireann shall be made at the conclusion of Question Time and the following arrangements shall apply: (i) the statement of the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications and of the main spokespersons for the Fine Gael, Labour and Democratic Left Parties shall not exceed ten minutes in each case and (ii) the Minister shall be called upon to make a statement in reply not exceeding five minutes; (4) the Minister or Minister of State at the Department of Education shall be called upon not later than 6.30 p.m. to reply to the debate on the Second Stage of No. 8 and the proceedings shall be brought to a conclusion not later than 6.45 p.m.; (5) the proceedings on the Committee and Remaining Stages of No. 8, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 11 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 Education; (6) Private Members' Business shall be No. 42, motion No. 43, the proceedings thereon shall be brought to a conclusion at 8.30 p.m. and Members shall be called in the following sequence at the following times: Fine Gael, 7 p.m.; Government, 7.20 p.m.; Labour, 7.40 p.m.; Government, 8 p.m. and Fine Gael 8.15 p.m.
Order of Business.
Is the proposal that Business shall be interrupted at 11 p.m. satisfactory and agreed? Agreed. Is it agreed that Nos. 13, 7, 24 and 14 shall be decided without debate?
In relation to No. 13, while I have no objection to the motion — in fact, I strongly support it — may I suggest to the Taoiseach that we should be consistent as regards the procedures followed in this House with regard to the reception line for the President? It would be very foolish not to accommodate the Leader of the Democratic Left given that he has the same number of Deputies in his party as the Leader of the Progressive Democrats. We should be more consistent about how we do our business in this House. If possible, this should be corrected before tomorrow afternoon.
I have to say that the motion to which the Deputy has referred provides for the address by the President tomorrow and no more or no less.
A Cheann Comhairle——
I am sorry, but I am calling Deputy Garland who has been seeking to intervene.
On item 24—the motion for Financial Resolution re the Special Committee on the Roads Bill, 1991 — I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that there is no proper provision for Independent Deputies to participate in the proceedings of these special committees. I should like my objection to be noted.
In regard to item 13, I thank Deputy Spring for having raised the matter in the manner in which he has done so. May I inquire, Sir, whether you have received correspondence from me seeking a meeting of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges at which this matter should be addressed and resolved before tomorrow?
Yes, I have received your correspondence. You may expect a reply from me very shortly.
Might I anticipate your reply in the convening of a meeting——
I cannot reveal any secrets at this stage, Deputy. I take it then, that items Nos. 13, 7, 24 and 14 are to be decided without debate? Agreed. Are the proposals for dealing with statements on Telecom Éireann agreed? Agreed. May I ask whether the proposals for dealing with Second Stage of item No. 8 are agreed? Agreed. Are the proposals for dealing with the Committee and remaining Stages of item No. 8 agreed? Agreed.
I do not propose to divide the House on this matter but I am unhappy that the number of Members who will be able to speak on the Local Authorities (Higher Education Grants) Bill, 1992 will be quite limited. It is quite an important and welcome Bill. I know that many Members would wish to have had an opportunity of speaking on the contentious issue of higher education grants. It is regrettable that the time available is limited at all, in particular, as limited as it is in this case.
I take it that the proposal that——
I am not making any proposal that we should vote on the issue.
Yes, I accept that, Deputy, from the tenor of your sentiments. I take it that the proposals for dealing with the Committee and remaining Stages of item No. 8 are agreed? Agreed. May I ask whether the proposals for dealing with Private Members' Business this evening are agreed? Agreed.
The Minister for Social Welfare has made a number of statements in recent weeks which have created the impression that the Government are contemplating measures which would severely curtail social welfare entitlements. Can the Taoiseach give the House an assurance that no announcements in regard to these matters will be made during the summer recess, that any announcement of Government policy on this matter will be made in the House when the House is in session, when Ministers can be questioned as to their intentions?
I must ask that we have regard to that which is or is not in order at this stage.
The Dáil proposes to rise for the summer recess on Friday. Would the Taoiseach inform us of the date it is expected we will resume? Can he indicate when it is intended to publish the legislative programme for the next session? Will the report of the Government sub-committee on travel and information be published during the summer? Furthermore, would he say whether that report will give rise to legislation and, if so, whether it will be given priority?
In relation to the latter part of the Deputy's question, I might remind him that there is a question on the Order Paper today, No. 11, in the name of Deputy Spring, about that matter. The date for resumption after the summer recess will be announced, as appropriate, on the last sitting day.
May I beg your indulgence for one minute, Sir? I noticed that yesterday the Minister for Labour met the unions involved in Waterford Glass and that the Minister for Industry and Commerce will meet management today. While we all welcome those actions, at this point the position is so serious it requires a meeting between the Taoiseach and the board of Waterford Glass——
I have given Deputy Deasy some latitude. I will go further and tell him that I will facilitate him during the week in raising that matter properly.
I have given notice of my intention to raise the matter on the Adjournment but I may not be permitted to do so.
Sorry, Deputy, it is not in order now.
I am asking the Taoiseach to meet the board of Waterford Glass, the Tony O'Reillys, the people who really matter——
Deputy Deasy must not persist. He may not contravene the Order of Business in this fashion.
This may be the last chance I will have to say it. I ask, in all sincerity, whether the Taoiseach and relevant Ministers will meet the board of Waterford Glass because, with all due respect, the management are merely intermediaries?
Would the Taoiseach inform the House whether he has been made aware by the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications of the correspondence received from the Confederation of Irish Industry seeking all-party support — which I believe exists in this House — for short legislation to lift the capping in RTE? Would he say whether it is intended to introduce that legislation before the House rises for the summer?
Has legislation been promised?
A Cheann Comhairle, with due respect, the Minister has promised reforming legislation in this area, an aspect of which clearly is the capping arrangements. My question was whether the Government intend responding to the Confederation of Irish Industry, so that we could move before the end of the session.
I suggest that the Deputy raise the matter at another time in another manner.
Can the Taoiseach give the House an approximate indication of when it is intended to introduce the legislation to implement EC Directive 84/253, dealing with the qualifications and independence of auditors, a Directive which should have been implemented by 1 January 1990 and which was promised in this House on 1 July?
Is legislation promised in the area?
I will have the matter investigated and will report to the Deputy today or tomorrow.
Would the Taoiseach clarify his position in relation to legislation for persons with a disability? He indicated on the Order of Business that if he was not satisfied with job opportunities for persons with a disability he would introduce such legislation. Since it has been promised in that fashion on the Order of Business, may I ask him what process he has put in place to assess this issue and to report on it to the House?
It is not promised legislation. I said we will include such people in our monitoring arrangements and will do everything we can to endeavour to improve opportunities for the disabled throughout the public service.
As this is the last sitting week could the Taoiseach indicate whether the White Paper on Marital Breakdown will be published during the summer recess or shall we have to await its publication until September or October next? In addition, can he inform the House what is the present state of the joint ownership of the family home legislation which people have been awaiting for a long time?
I would remind the Deputy that this is the last week of this session. Every effort will be made to finalise the White Paper on Marital Breakdown which will be published as soon as possible. The legislation on joint home ownership is being accelerated in an endeavour to have it published as soon as possible.
On the last occasion on which questions were answered by the Minister for Energy he indicated he was preparing legislation to deal with subsidiary companies of the semi-State bodies under his control. Would the Minister say at what stage of preparation is this legislation? I know it is a fairly detailed departmental matter.
As I understand it, the Minister for Energy has engaged the services of a consultancy group to advise him on the best structures. I assume he will not be introducing any Bill or any changes whatsoever until he will have received the report of that consultancy group.
There are two different matters involved, one is the restructuring of the ESB, the other is in regard to subsidiary companies, not merely of the ESB but of Bord Gáis and others. Perhaps the Taoiseach would report back to me at some stage.
Have the Government decided to discuss the serious problem within the car hire business? Will the Taoiseach say whether the Government will advance some proposals to deal with the matter before the tourist industry falls around the ears of the Minister, or is she too busy?
I am sorry, I thought the matter was something that was in order.
Would the Taoiseach say whether there are arrangements in place for a debate in the House to deal with the abolition of both fiscal and physical frontiers from 1 January 1993 and implications of that for jobs in this country, for those employed at Border posts and so on?
That is something for another time, Deputy.
There are six months remaining and there has been no indication from the Government as to what plans, if any, have been put in place to replace what obtains at present and the enormous implications for this country in relation to the opening of frontiers and so on——
Unless the Deputy can point to legislation promised in the area it is not in order.
I asked the Taoiseach earlier about social welfare entitlements. Would he say whether the Government have any plans for further social welfare legislation this year? Second, would the Taoiseach say when the legislation promised on 12 May to comprehensively modernise and consolidate the law on waste disposal — which is quite important in the light of commitments given by the Government at the Rio de Janeiro Summit — will be introduced?
A general scheme is being prepared in relation to the latter part of the Deputy's question. In relation to the first part of his question, I can assure the Deputy and the House that any speculation about social welfare benefits being taken away, reduced, or otherwise, is pure speculation. There is no basis or foundation for it.
Will you call off Minister McCreevy?
The Department of Social Welfare and the Minister for Social Welfare will, of necessity, continue to try to improve the social welfare system and whatever changes are required in that regard will be legislated for if necessary.
Is the Taoiseach aware that the Minister did all the speculating?