Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 15 Oct 1992

Vol. 423 No. 6

Order of Business.

It is proposed to take Nos. 6 and 7 and subject to the agreement of No. 7, to take Votes 2 and 34. It is further proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that No. 6 shall be decided without debate; No. 7 shall be decided without debate and any division demanded thereon shall be taken forthwith and, subject to the agreement of No. 7, (i) Vote 2 shall be taken forthwith without debate and any division demanded thereon shall be taken forthwith; (ii) Vote 34 shall be taken on the conclusion of the proceedings on Vote 2 and the following arrangements shall apply: (a) the opening speech of the Minister or Minister of State and the speeches of the main spokespersons nominated by Fine Gael and Labour shall not exceed 20 minutes in each case; (b) the speech of each other Member called on shall not exceed ten minutes; (c) the Minister or Minister of State shall be called upon not later than 1.20 p.m. to make a speech in reply not exceeding ten minutes; and (d) the question necessary to bring the proceedings on Vote 34 to a conclusion shall be put not later than 1.30 p.m. and any division demanded thereon shall be taken forthwith. Statements on the International Marine/Loran C Agreement shall be made on the conclusion of the proceedings of Vote 34 and the following arrangements shall apply; (i) the opening statement of the Minister or Minister of State and the statements of each other Member called on shall not exceed 20 minutes and (ii) the Minister or Minister of State shall be called upon not later than 4.50 p.m. to make a statement in reply not exceeding ten minutes.

The Dáil shall meet tomorrow at 10.30 a.m. and shall adjourn not later than 4 p.m.

Is the proposal for dealing with No. 6 satisfactory?

On item No. 6 relating to the Green Paper on Education, I would like to confirm that the Government are agreeable to a further day's debate on this in view of the fact that a one day debate would allow only a small minority of Members to contribute on this important topic.

We will leave that matter to the Whips to discuss.

I understand from the Fine Gael Whip that the Government have indicated that they are willing to provide another day for that debate and I just wish to have that confirmed publicly.

The matter will be discussed by the Whips and we will not stand in their way.

Irrespective of what happened the other day I must protest in the strongest possible terms at the manner in which this new procedure regarding Friday debates is starting in the House. It appears that there is no provision whatever for Independent Deputies and the whole procedure has not been explained to us. The least the Taoiseach could do is explain the matter to us. It is not clear from the Order Paper what the position is. I do not think time will be provided for Independent Deputies. Will the Taoiseach please comment on the matter? Will the Taoiseach say something? I am entitled to a reply.

That could be an application for a transfer.

I assure the Deputy that the interests of minorities in this House shall be protected. Are the proposals for dealing with No. 7 satisfactory?

The statement that item No. 7 shall be decided without debate appears to be in conflict with item No. 3 which sets out the guidelines for the debate on the second part of item No. 7.

Item No. 7 (ii) is the introductory part, which will be decided without debate, and item No. 3 (ii) is the taking of the Supplementary Estimate.

It is only the first part of item No. 7 which is being taken without debate?

That is correct. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 7 (ii) agreed? Agreed. Are the proposals for dealing with item No. 3 (ii) agreed?

Yesterday I indicated to the Government Chief Whip that I felt there should be a debate on the Supplementary Estimate relating to this House. We are seeking to pass an Estimate in the region of £23 million on the nod. It is of significance that it deals with the Houses of the Oireachtas. Estimates of this size should not be passed without some debate. This is particularly the case when it relates to our work. I wish to register my objection to this procedure being pursued; it is a mistake. The issues dealt with in the Estimate are excellent, the introduction of electronic voting is an important advance and the same applies to the additional staff required for the extra hours which this House is sitting.

Under item No. 3 (ii) (a) it is indicated that the Fine Gael and Labour Parties will have 20 minutes in which to speak on this important debate in relation to assistance for companies in trouble. Effectively, the Democratic Left will have ten minutes to speak on this issue and they should also be given 20 minutes. There is a discrepancy in the way in which time is allocated——

There certainly is.

If the Fine Gael Party wish to argue for 40 minutes for them they are entitled to do so. However, ten minutes is a derisory allocation in which to deal with jobs.

If the Deputy's party splits again, they might get double the allocation.

The Deputy should argue for more time——

I would be grateful if the Deputy would finalise the points he wishes to make.

There is a discrepancy if you compare the time being allocated for the International Marine-Loran C Agreement, where each Member of the House who wishes to speak will be allocated 20 minutes while Members who wish to speak on the jobs issue are allocated only ten minutes. There seems to be a misunderstanding about the issue with which we are dealing under the Estimate for the Department of Industry and Commerce.

Is the proposal for dealing with Vote 2 satisfactory?

I asked if the Government would agree to allocating 20 minutes for the Democratic Left on the Vote for the Department of Industry and Commerce.

These are matters to which the Whips might give more careful attention in drawing up time schedules of this kind.

They certainly should.

Are the proposals for dealing with No. 2 agreed? Agreed. Are the proposals for dealing with Vote 34 agreed? Agreed. Are the proposals in respect of statements on the International Marine-Loran C Agreement agreed? Agreed. Are the proposals in relation to tomorrow's sitting agreed? Agreed.

In view of the fact that people are dying at the rate of 100 per day in Baidoa and that aid workers have had to withdraw from the town because of lack of UN protection, will the Government urgently ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs to contact the United Nations to ensure that adequate protection for our aid workers so that food and other supplies will get through to the starving people in Somalia, particularly in Baidoa?

The matter raised by the Deputy is not strictly a matter for the Order of Business.

People are dying——

I have sympathy with the Deputy.

I thought the fact that 100 people per day are dying in Baidoa might warrant——

There are other procedures in the House for dealing with such matters.

The House will be aware that the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Andrews, was the first Foreign Minister to visit Somalia and that he has constantly referred to the situation. The House may rest assured that the question will continue to be pursued by the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Why is there a foul-up at UN level?

Will the Taoiseach state whether item No. 15 on the schedule of legislation promised for this session — the establishment of the Single Agency for the Industrial Development Bill — will include provision for the county enterprise boards? Is it the Government's intention to provide a statutory basis for these new boards? Will we be in a position to debate both at the same time?

The Deputy should have read the announcement, which clearly said that these boards will operate on an non-statutory basis for 12 months and will then be put on a statutory basis.

I should like to remind the Taoiseach of the Joint Programme for Government between himself and his lesser partner and to draw his attention to the commitment in that programme to introduce legislation — as far back as 1991 — to abolish remaining ground rents. When will that legislation be circulated to enable the House to consider whether there is any substance in this programme?

Is it promised legislation?

There is a question in that regard on today's Order Paper which I will not anticipate.

At the EC Summit in Birmingham tomorrow will the Taoiseach advocate an immediate action plan for the relief of Sarajevo and for the provision of food and fuel supplies for Bosnia in the light of the impending deaths of tens of thousands of our neighbours?

These questions place the Chair in an invidious position. He does not wish to rule then out, but Standing Orders do not permit raising these matters.

Perhaps the Taoiseach would be prepared to respond to this urgent request because of the fact that there is a possibility that tens of thousands will be dying from starvation. It is only a short trip by aeroplane and I urge the Taoiseach to ensure that EC action will be taken in this regard.

The Deputy has made his point.

In view of the presence of our distinguished visitor from St. Lucia, in the Public Gallery, will the Taoiseach take note of Question No. 52 on today's Order Paper and discuss the matter with the distinguished guest?

It is improper to draw our distinguished guest into the business of this House.

I want——

Deputy Sheehan, please resume your seat.

Suspend Standing Orders.

Deputy Sheehan, you have caused enough unpleasantness. Resume your seat or leave the House.

He scored a direct hit.

Deputy Sheehan, I ask you for the last time to resume your seat. You have caused the Chair enough difficulty this morning. My patience is exhausted. I call Deputy Garland.

In the matter of promised legislation, I should like to ask the Taoiseach to explain why, under the environmental action programme published in January 1990, four Bills have not been published and are not even on the B list for publication. I remind the Taoiseach of the titles of those four Bills. They are the National Park and Heritage Areas Bill, the National Heritage Council Bill, the Wildlife (Amendment) Bill and the remainder of the Foreshore (Amendment) Bill. Would the Taoiseach state why those items are not receiving any priority?

Some outstanding issues remain in relation to those Bills. Those issues have to be resolved before the Bills are published.

It is now nearly three years since the programme was published.

In view of the fog of confusion through which the ship of State is now moving, could I ask the Taoiseach whether he is giving any priority to the introduction of the Merchant Shipping (Wreck and Salvage) Bill, recorded as number eight on the list of priorities?

(Interruptions.)

The Government will not get a better navigator than the former Taoiseach.

I call on Deputy Lee.

On a more serious note, I should like to ask the Taoiseach when the Department of Health will initiate moves to transfer Temple Street Hospital from its present location to the Mater Hospital complex, as has been promised.

Deputy Lee, please raise that matter in a more appropriate way. My office would be glad to advise you on the appropriate procedure.

Could I ask the Taoiseach when the promised legislation concerning the confiscation of the proceeds of crime will be introduced and taken through the House, in view of the present concern about crime expressed throughout the country?

The Deputy will be glad to hear that legislation is almost ready.

Top
Share