It is proposed to take Nos. 11, 2 and 8. It is also proposed that, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, Nos. 11 and 2 shall be decided without debate, that the sitting shall not be suspended at 1.30 p.m. today and that the Minister or Minister of State at the Department of Health shall be called upon not later than 2 p.m. to reply to the debate on Second Stage of No. 8 and that proceedings thereon shall be brought to a conclusion not later than 2.15 p.m.
Order of Business.
Are the proposals for dealing with Nos. 11 and 2 agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal that the sitting shall not be suspended at 1.30 p.m. today agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 8 satisfactory and agreed?
With regard to No. 8, I am very unhappy with the idea that legislation which has been promised for two years and which has been on the Order Paper for a year is now to be put through by the Government in one day. This House is being treated as some form of legislation processing institution rather than a deliberative body where we are intended to improve legislation. The House is being run like a badly managed sausage factory rather than a place where Members elected by the people have an opportunity to contribute to the improvement of legislation proposed by the Government.
I see little prospect of the Government going back on this proposed guillotine. I therefore propose an amendment to the Order of Business to at least ensure that as many Members as possible on both sides of the House are allowed to contribute to the debate. I propose that after 2.15 p.m. the following words be added "the speech of each Member called upon shall not exceed 15 minutes". If that is agreed a larger number of Members will have an opportunity to speak than would be the case if the initial contributors were allowed to monopolise the time. While I object fundamentally to the entire procedure I make that proposal faute de mieux.
Two weeks ago I anticipated that exactly what Deputy Bruton is saying would be said every morning on the Order of Business until the summer recess. In his absence, this Bill was described here as something that was written in five minutes, which could be debated in five minutes and could be got rid of.
Not by anyone in Fine Gael.
I would refer Deputy Bruton back to 1984 when his Government under his stewardship, as reformer, put through four Bills in one day.
(Interruptions.)
Let us cut out the hypocrisy and get down to business.
(Interruptions.)
This should not give rise to debate.
On a point of order, the Taoiseach said "let us cut out the hypocrisy". Since 28 February of this year the Taoiseach, who is presiding over an open Government, has succeeded in putting through no less than 43 guillotines. The guillotine this morning on the Health (Family Planning) Bill, is the 44th guillotine since this Taoiseach took office.
(Interruptions.)
This must not give rise to debate now, please.
On a point of order, is the Chair putting the reasonable amendment that was proposed by the Leader of the Opposition?
I am, Deputy.
Is that acceptable to the Government?
(Interruptions.)
If the House wants to agree to it, fine. I have no hesitation in agreeing to it and, if not, I would ask the Deputies to discipline themselves in short speeches.
I take it that is agreed. Deputy De Rossa has been on his feet for some time.
I was standing in order to appeal to the Taoiseach to agree to the reasonable proposal. It is important——
Deputies:
It is agreed.
——that enough Deputies who have an interest in this matter should be given an opportunity to speak on it.
A Deputy:
You are wasting time.
Your Whip would not agree to it until now, because of this brinkmanship. He should get his numbers right more often.
On the Order of Business——
A Cheann Comhairle——
Sorry, Deputy Spring, I have called Deputy De Rossa.
On the Order of Business, my purpose in rising is to ask the Taoiseach, in relation to the proposed visit of the President to this House today, if he could explain to the House why his Government are treating my party differently in terms of representation on the reception visit from the way in which the Progressive Democrats are being treated. They also have six Members?
I think the Deputy, and Members, will agree that the Chair, and his predecessors, have striven most earnestly to keep the incumbent of the Office of President out of controversy on the floor of this House.
This is about the internal workings of this House.
I, therefore, ask the Deputy to desist from saying anything that might deflect from the importance of the historic aspect of the proceedings that are envisaged here today.
We are the elected Members.
I fully accept what the Chair says in relation to keeping the Office of President out of a controversy in this House. I do not intend to embroil her in any controversy but I have an obligation to defend the rights of my party. On the basis of precedent, I believe I am entitled to be present in the reception group welcoming the President to this House on this historic occasion. My party have six Deputies, as indeed do the Progressive Democrats, whose leader will be in the reception group. On previous occasions, in 1987 and in 1988 when I was a member of The Workers' Party, our leader was present in such reception committees and at that stage we had only four Deputies. The present action is a gross attempt at pettiness and discourtesy to a party of this House and I appeal to the Taoiseach to change his mind at this late stage.
Again, may I appeal to Members not to do or say anything that would detract from the importance of the occasion we are about to have in this House today?
I am using the only avenue open to me to appeal to the Govenment not to deny my party a place in the reception group.
The matter to which the Deputy refers has been the subject of a decision by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges——
Based on wrong information.
——and there is nothing I can do about it now. I trust Deputy Bruton appreciates the Chair's position.
Any remarks I will make on this subject have to do with the internal business of this House. Obviously, the House can make a decision which supersedes that of any committee. On behalf of my party, I am perfectly agreeable to Deputy De Rossa being involved with the other party leaders in any reception arrangements that are made for visitors to this House.
Any arrangements that may be arrived at in respect of this matter must be reached outside this Chamber.
I made the Labour Party position on this matter quite clear yesterday and that has not changed. It would be in order if Deputy De Rossa were present on the reception line and, certainly, if this were the case it would have saved us a great deal of silly hassle.
We will finish this session on Friday. Will the Taoiseach indicate if there will be an opportunity to have a discussion in this House or a briefing for the party leaders on the talks that are taking place in London?
As I said last week, I want to ensure in so far as I can the confidentiality of those talks, as they are very sensitive. I know the party leaders appreciate that and I appreciate the manner in which they have approached this matter up to now. May I repeat again that I will keep them informed of developments as they take place.
In their joint Programme for Government the Government promised to introduce legislation that would apply to companies in general, and State companies in particular, to include provisions that company directors and any persons involved in the management or control of companies would be required to disclose direct or indirect personal interests in the company's business and imposing new penalties for nondisclosure of such interests. Would the Taoiseach indicate the position in regard to this promised legislation and the Minister responsible for its preparation?
I do not recall that legislation was promised but guidelines have been prepared and circulated on it.
May I draw the Taoiseach's attention to the bottom of page 19 and the top of page 20 of the joint Programme for Government, which I believe he was involved in negotiating with the other party forming the Government, which clearly states, "legislation will be introduced on this subject". Will the Taoiseach confirm that legislation is being introduced, and if so, the Minister involved or if this part of the joint Programme for Government is now null and void?
Fairytales of Ireland.
It is no harm to read the joint Programme for Government from time to time——
Particularly in public.
After the Taoiseach has finished going over the beef tribunal transcript.
Guidelines have already been issued: legislation is probably not deemed to be necessary but I will have the matter followed up.
May I take it from that that this part of the joint Programme for Government has been abandoned?
Not necessarily.
Hope springs eternal.
For Deputy Roche, hope springs eternal.
(Limerick East): Will the Taoiseach take an opportunity before the end of this session to make a statement to the House on the instructions by the Attorney General to the State Counsel, which on the face of it appears to be an attempt to gag the Tribunal of Inquiry into the Beef Processing Industry?
Deputy, if this irrelevance is to continue I will go on to the business as ordered. This is quite disorderly.
The Deputy is getting too close to the bone.
On a point of order, Sir, the tribunal was set up by a motion of this House. It is the agent of this House and the Government are attempting to gag it.
The Deputy is adverting to a matter which is sub judice.
(Limerick East): The Tribunal of Inquiry into the Beef Processing Industry has cost £20 million and there is a deliberate attempt being made to gag it.
It is about time they were gagged.
Deputies are offering and Deputy Noonan should please resume his seat as he is out of order.
(Limerick East): Sir, on what grounds?
On the grounds that the matter has nothing to do with the Order of Business.
(Limerick East): I am asking the Taoiseach to make a statement on the matter.
That is not relevant to the Order of Business.
(Limerick East): The Taoiseach was asked the question every day this week and he replied and this is the last opportunity I have to raise the matter.
Order, unless Members will now conform to what is relevant on the Order of Business, I will have no option but to proceed to the next business.
I know, Sir, that you are anxious to maintain order in this House and you gave a quick response to Deputy Noonan that a query in relation to the Tribunal of Inquiry into the Beef Processing Industry could be considered to be sub judice. I suspect, Sir, that you would like to reconsider that in view of the fact that the tribunal is not a court and, therefore, the rules of sub judice could not apply to it.
There is a long-standing understanding in this House——
It is a long-standing tribunal——
That is very worthwhile.
The Taoiseach should reply at some stage to the question Deputy Noonan asked.
But not now, we are talking about a judicial inquiry.
Would the Taoiseach like to reply now.
He has more than that to answer for.
May I make a final appeal to the Taoiseach to ensure that the Minister for Social Welfare withdraws one of the meanest and most uncaring cuts in the old age pensions before 24 July 1992? The cost of one day's proceedings of the Tribunal of Inquiry into the Beef Processing Industry would meet the cost of cancelling the proposed cut of £6 per week in old age pensions.
Please, Deputy, the pleas of the Chair are being completely ignored here this morning.
Is the Taoiseach aware of the distress this is causing to old age pensioners?
The joint Programme for Government, promised that 12 or more Bills in the law reform area would be introduced before the end of 1991. Will the Taoiseach be in a position to advise us on the Order of Business tomorrow or the next day if it is intended to publish or circulate any of these Bills over the holiday period as they are long overdue?
I will communicate with the Deputy on the position of all 12 Bills.
Will the Taoiseach indicate if the Government have given clearance for the publication of the ESB's annual report? Will he explain the delay in publication as the Government have been sitting on the report for four months? As the report touches on a number of very important issues of national significance are the Government trying to limit the public knowledge of these events.
This is hardly relevant now Deputy.
Yesterday the House had an opportunity to hear a statement from the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications on the sacking of the Telecom Éireann chief. On the Order of Business, could I ask the Taoiseach whether time will be made available for the Minister for Education to make a statement to the House about the way in which the appointment was made in the first place?
Please, Deputies.
When will the Government circulate the amendment to the European Communities Act, 1972, and when can we expect that to be enacted into law?
It is expected to bring that legislation forward in the next session.
In view of the damage that can be done to the interests of the Irish food industry by health scares concerning the use of animal remedies, when will the Government introduce the Animal Remedies Bill, which was promised in the House by the Minister on 28 April 1992 and which is designed to increase the penalties imposed on those who use angel dust and other such substances?
Preparation of the text of that Bill is at a very advanced stage and it will be introduced in the next session.