It is proposed to take Nos. 2, 3, 4, 1, 7 and 8. It is further proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that; (1) Nos. 2, 3 and 4 shall be decided without debate. (2) The Second Stage of No. 1 shall be taken today and the proceedings thereon, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 1.30 p.m. by one question which shall be put from the Chair and the following arrangements shall apply in relation to the debate: (i) the speeches of the Minister of State and of the main spokespersons for the Fine Gael Party, the Progressive Democrat Party and the Technical Group shall not exceed 30 minutes in each case; (ii) the speech of each Member called on shall not exceed 20 minutes in each case; (iii) a Minister or Minister of State shall be called upon not later than 1.15 p.m. to make a speech not exceeding 15 minutes; (iv) Members may share time; (3) The Committee and Remaining Stages of No. 1 shall be taken and brought to a conclusion not later than 6.45 p.m. by one question which shall be put from the Chair and which shall in relation to amendments include only those set down or accepted by the Minister for Finance. (4) Private Members' Business which shall be No. 11 shall be brought to a conclusion at 8.30 p.m. today.
Order of Business.
Are the proposals for dealing with Nos. 2, 3 and 4 to be decided without debate agreed? Agreed.
I refer to No. 3 on page 129 of the Order Paper. The effect of this is that each day the Technical Group would have the fifth of the five Priority Questions. The order specified suggests that Fine Gael have the first two questions, the Progressive Democrats the third, Fine Gael have the fourth and Technical Group the fifth. This is a departure from normal Standing Orders of the House. Standing Orders provide for the situation that has obtained up to today; this is a sectional order to change that, the effect of which will be to exclude my group from effective participation in Priority Question Time.
Through no fault of yours, Sir, up to now on only one occasion this year we have dealt with more than Priority Questions. Having regard to the nature of Priority Questions there will be important matters which will not be reached. I appeal to the other Opposition parties not to push this order through. It is not the intention of the Independent Deputies, the Green Party or Democratic Left to obstruct unreasonably spokespersons for Fine Gael on important issues or to——
The Deputy and the House will agree I have allowed him quite considerable latitude to develop his point on the subject.
I accept that but what is proposed is a negation of democracy. We are about to start the debate on Dáil reform tomorrow and to cut out Deputies democratically elected to this House is unworthy of Fine Gael or the Progressive Democrats. I ask them to think again on it.
In this connection, we have applied for an extra five minutes for Priority Questions to try to overcome the difficulty that has been created. It has taken a great deal of negotiation and discussion to agree to the motion in its present form.
In relation to item No. 3, on behalf of the Independent members of the Technical Group, I appeal to the Taoiseach and every fairminded member of this House not to push this item through today but allow it to be referred back for further discussion. The effect of what is recommended by the two larger Opposition parties in item No. 3 would be to deny the Independents and the smaller parties a fair chance of any meaningful participation in the most basic procedures of this House at Question Time. If this were to happen——
I wish to dissuade the Deputy from embarking on a speech; a brief comment should suffice at this stage.
It has profound long term implications over the next few years for this group. It would simply mean that the existing procedures and rules of the House are to be changed deliberately and unashamedly to exclude minorities from participating in the Dáil. I appeal, in particular to the Leader of the Fine Gael Party, Deputy Bruton, to agree to defer this matter so that a fairer system can be agreed. If minorities in this House are treated in such an anti-democratic manner what chance is there for minorities outside the Dáil.
Fine Gael considered this matter in some detail. Were our party to demand strict proportionality, it would mean that either the Progressive Democrats or the Technical Group would not be in a position to have any question placed or answered on a particular day. As we accept the rights of minority groups we agreed that each such group should have the right to put down a Priority Question and have it answered. It is a matter for regulation and you, Sir, as Ceann Comhairle to see in so far as is possible that the Priority Question Time slot is dealt with in full, thereby ensuring that both the Progressive Democrats and the Technical Group not alone have the right to have their question placed but also have the right to have it answered. I repeat again that were the Fine Gael Party, as the major Opposition party, to demand its full proportionate due in this matter, then either one of the two groups would not have a Priority Question answered at all on particular days.
I know that considerable thought was given to this matter over the past number of days, I pose the question now whether any useful purpose would be served by referring it back again to the Whips.
I have no desire to stop any group having the opportunity to ask questions but it is a matter for the Fine Gael Party and the Progressive Democrats. The Government has no objection to it being left for another day, if the Dáil so wishes, to allow an opportunity to try to resolve the matter.
The Fine Gael Party consists of 45 Deputies. If we were to get our full share of Priority Questions — there are only five Priority Questions allocated — every day we would have four out of the five questions. In order to facilitate other parties in the House, we agreed to reduce the number we are taking from four to three. I belive that is reasonable. It is important to recognise that every Deputy in this House is equal and each Deputy in the Fine Gael Party is equal to each Deputy in Democratic Left. By allowing Democratic Left have one question out of five we are giving them more than their share. It is not unreasonable on our part.
In the spirit of generosity exhibited by the Taoiseach in this matter in wishing to extend to everyone in the House a reasonable opportunity of asking questions, I ask the Taoiseach whether the Government would be prepared to provide five minutes extra for Priority Questions each day and, in that way, facilitate all the parties engaged in this discussion?
The Chair has allowed a lot of latitude. Can we accept that Deputy Rabbitte is winding up his remarks?
On the point made by Deputy Bruton about Fine Gael not getting their entitlement in strict proportion, the alternative arrangement of four and one on alternate days would give Fine Gael a marginally better arrangement over a period of 20 days. However, the fact remains that the concession the Fine Gael Party has made is to the advantage of the Progressive Democrats and to the disadvantage of the Technical Group.
I know you are not too good at figures, lads, but that is the way it is. That situation effectively excludes the Technical Group. It is not long ago since the Progressive Democrats had fewer than seven Members in this House and I regret that they are agreeing to push this through. I do not think it is worth taking up the time of the House in contesting a vote on which we know the outcome. The Priority Question today is from Deputy Gregory. We will use every parliamentary tactic available to us during Priority Question Time to make sure that the fifth question is raised.
When the Progressive Democrats had six Members we had no rights whatever. Democratic Left now have four Members and have all the rights.
That is no way to refer to Mr. Haughey.
The question I posed was that Nos.2,3 and 4 be decided without debate. I take it that is agreed? Agreed. Are the proposals for dealing with Second Stage of No.1 agreed?
I wish to move an amendment to the order concerning the Committee and Final Stages.
I am putting it in two parts in order to facilitate your amendment. I am putting first that Second Stage be taken and I will propose later that the Committee and Final Stages be taken. I will call for your amendment at that stage. Is that satisfactory?
I propose on behalf of the Fine Gael Party that Committee Stage of this Bill be deferred for a week in order to allow the Government time to publish legislation which would subject all public authorities to the requirement to apply for planning permission by which all other citizens must abide.
I believe there is a fundamental principle here of equality before the law. I do not believe that the State, particularly where it is engaging in what may be semi-commercial activity, should not be subject to planning permission requirement in the same way as others. I also believe that citizens who wish to object to any State developments should have the same rights to object under the planning law that they have in regard to private sector sponsored developments. Under EC law competition should be fair between State and private sector developers and, therefore, the same planning laws should apply to State developers as private developers. For that reason, Sir, I propose two amendments to the Order of Business.
In regard to Second Stage, I propose that instead of that Stage concluding at 1.30 p.m. today it should conclude at 6 p.m. I propose, in regard to Committee and Remaining Stages, that they be taken not earlier than Tuesday, 23 February to allow time for the Government to publish legislation to subject works by public authorities to the requirements to obtain planning permission in the same way as applies to all other citizens.
This is a fundamental matter, both of the liberties of citizens and of the liberties of this House and I hope the Government will accept this constructive proposal. We do not object to the Office of Public Works and other State authorities being given this power but we believe they should be subject to planning permission the same as everyone else.
I support Deputy Bruton's proposal.
Brief comments only at this point; we must not at this stage anticipate debate on the Bill proper.
I am not entering into a discussion on the merits or demerits of the Bill. My experience is that rushed legislation is bad legislation. I appreciate that this is an emergency to some degree but, at the same time. Deputy Bruton's proposal is reasonable. It allows time for pause and reflection and time to consider appropriate amendments to the Bill. From that point of view, it is a reasonable approach to what the Government will, no doubt, present as being an emergency case.
The proposal to rush Second Stage through by 1.30 p.m. will allow at most two and a half hours for debate. Of that, two hours will be pre-empted by the four principal spokespersons and a quarter of an hour for the winding up of the debate by the Government. That will allow 15 minutes at most to other Members of this House to express their views on this issue. Quite frankly, that is not good enough and Deputy Bruton's proposal to allow until 6 p.m. today is surely a reasonable compromise and would allow other Members to participate for even five or ten minutes in the debate. I strongly urge the Government to accept the proposal.
I am very disturbed at the way it is proposed to rush this Bill through. The Bill is an extensive one. The public may feel that it only relates to difficulties that have arisen at Mullaghmore and at two other interpretative centres but that is not the case. Enormous powers are given not just to the Office of Public Works but to each individual member of the Government also. If there is a division on the Order of Business — as I imagine there will be if there is not agreement on it — significantly less than two and half hours will be available for Second Stage debate and that is patently inadequate. It means that five speeches in total will be made.
It is a matter of considerable importance. There are considerable legal problems that arise and need time to be sorted out. At the very minimum, what Deputy Bruton has now suggested should be agreed and it would only be reasonable for the Government to agree to that. To do otherwise is quite unreasonable.
I, too wish to comment on the extraordinary haste with which this legislation is being brought before the House. Like many Members of the House, my view and that of my party would be altered somewhat if there were a requirement on the part of State authorities to apply for planning permission. The Programme for a Partnership in Government promised the introduction of legislation which most of us understood to mean that State authorities would be required to apply for planning permission. However, we have had a series of incidents — voting down an amendment on the Roads Bill last Thursday, the introduction of this legislation and a statement yesterday on the Order of Business by the Taoiseach — which seem to suggest that the Government is contemplating something less than a requirement to apply for planning permission on the part of State authorities.
What Deputy Bruton is seeking is justifed and I invite the Taoiseach to state whether it is the Government's intention to introduce legislation to require State authorities to apply for planning permission and to respond positively to the suggestion that we leave Committee Stage for another week to allow the Government to do so.
A Cheann Comhairle——
I am sorry, I cannot invite a debate at this stage.
Deputy Connor is our party spokesperson on this issue.
As somebody who has tabled amendments to the Bill may I make a brief comment?
No. Members will be afforded an opportunity of deliberating on this measure in some detail today.
Surely, as somebody who has tabled three amendments to the Bill. I am entitled to make a brief comment?
The Deputy is our spokesman.
I will call the Deputy after I hear the Taoiseach.
I would like to speak before the Taoiseach.
He will be elected before him the next time.
I wish to direct my question to the Taoiseach. Will he explain to us what is meant under paragraph 3, page 48 of the Programme for a Partnership Government which deals with planning? We could probably withdraw our amendments today if he does so.
I thought I made the position plain yesterday but, apparently, there are some misconceptions about the Bill and its contents. The Bill is to regularise the position of the Office of Public Works; it is an emergency measure. It is doing no more than that.
It is about more than that.
The questions raised by Deputies O'Malley, Gilmore and Connor are about the planning aspects of the High Court decision. I made it clear yesterday that there were two differing High Court decisions in relation to the planning problem. They were appealed by the Government, as a matter of urgency, to the Supreme Court for adjudication but, in the meantime, we were looking at the whole planning process to implement the commitments in the Programme for a Partnership Government. That is the important part of it. This is a regulation Bill. The other part surely needs plenty of time for consideration to make sure we get it right. The House can be assured that the commitments in the programme for Government will be implemented. I read about and listened to Deputy Cox's hysterics in relation to building nuclear power stations. Somebody in his own party knows more about nuclear power stations than we do; consequently, they should not make inflammatory statements or try to create fear in people's minds about the Bill. This is an emergency Bill to regulate the position of the Office of Public Works, to allow the projects to continue, and keep people in employment — no more, no less. We will return to the other area in due course.
May I reply, given that I proposed an amendment?
I am not going to permit a debate on this Bill to take place now.
May I exercise my right of reply?
There is no such thing as a right of reply on the Order of Business.
With all due respect, Sir, there is a right of reply for anyone who proposes a motion; they are entitled to reply to the debate on the motion.
We are dealing now with the taking of a measure.
I proposed a motion to amend the Order of Business and I believe, Sir, despite the laughter from the other side of the House, I am entitled to reply.
A brief comment, Deputy; I am putting the question now.
Thank you. I am glad I have established that right which seems to be the subject of some mirth on the other side of the House.
I have not conceded any such right, Deputy; there is no such right.
This Bill is not mere emergency legislation. It gives the State indefinite, unlimited powers to build and it does not subject the State to planning permission. To my mind that is fundamentally wrong.
This is not good enough. I am putting the question.
I believe, therefore, that the Government——
the question is: "That the Second Stage of the State Authorities——
Sir, I was speaking——
Deputy Bruton, please; the Deputy will have an opportunity of elaborating in great detail on this Bill shortly.
This is unacceptable.
In great detail? He will not even get in.
I was replying to the debate on my motion. I was entirely relevant and I believe, Sir, that you the same as any other Member of the House is subject to the rules of the House. I believe that for you to interrupt me at this stage is entirely out of order on your part.
No, Deputy, the Chair——
Sir, you are subject to the rules of the House the same as everyone else.
Deputy Bruton, I will not be dictated to by you every morning on the Order of Business——
I am entitled——
——I find myself in conflict with the Deputy.
You are a disgrace to the Chair.
There is equality in the Dáil. We have jackboot tactics.
I am entitled to repeat my remarks. If the Chair allows me, I have a few more comments to make.
Deputy Bruton, allow me to clarify a point. You have no right of reply. The Order of Business in this instance is the prerogative of the Taoiseach. If anyone has a right to reply, he and he alone has that right.
On the Order of Business, not on an amendment.
At this stage the Chair accepts an observation on the Order of Business. You have put down an amendment, Deputy Bruton, and I am putting that amendment to the House.
It is normal for any amendment put in any forum to be——
In any other Parliament in the world the Leader of the Opposition would not be treated in this fashion.
It is appalling. There is no other country in Europe where the Leader of the Opposition would be silenced in this way by the Chair.
It is outrageous.
It is grossly unfair and untypical——
The question is: "That Second Stage of the State Authorities (Development and Management) Bill, 1993 be taken now", to which an amendment has been tabled by Deputy Bruton. I am putting the amendment.
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Bell, Michael.
- Bhamjee, Moosajee.
- Bhreathnach, Niamh.
- Bree, Declan.
- Brennan, Matt.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Broughan, Tommy.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Costello, Joe.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Ellis, John.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Brian.
- Fitzgerald, Eithne.
- Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Flood, Chris.
- Foley, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Gallagher, Pat.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hilliard, Colm M.
- Hughes, Séamus.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kenny, Seán.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, James.
- McDowell, Derek.
- Moffatt, Tom.
- Morley, P. J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
- Mulvihill, John.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Noonan, Michael. (Limerick West).
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Gerry.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Penrose, William.
- Power, Seán.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Ryan, John.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Smith, Michael.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Upton, Pat.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Eamon.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Woods, Michael.
Níl
- Ahearn, Theresa.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Liam.
- Carey, Donal.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Cox, Pat.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Crowley, Frank.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Currie, Austin.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Dukes, Alan M.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Foxe, Tom.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Harney, Mary.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Keogh, Helen.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McDowell, Michael.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Nealon, Ted.
- O'Donnell, Liz.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- Owen, Nora.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, P. J.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Yates, Ivan.
On a point of order, there was some discrepancy between what the Chair read out at the outset of the division and what he read out before the actual voting took place. Will he clarify that what we voted on is the ordering of Second Stage and not the substantive question.
The matter is quite clear, Deputy. The proposals for dealing with Second Stage of No. 1 and your amendment have been disposed of and the House has decided that Second Stage of the Bill will be proceeded with today.
I wish to move an amendment.
I must now put another question, Deputy.
In regard to the Committee and Remaining Stages——
That is my prerogative.
I wish to move an amendment to that, Sir.
Sorry, Deputy, allow me to put it to the House first.
Fine.
The question is that the proposals for dealing with the Committee and remaining Stages of No. 1 be agreed to.
I believe that Committee Stage should be postponed for a week. We know from the recent decision in the High Court on the Mullaghmore case the huge costs that can occur if one is not satisfied in advance that particular legislation or powers being exercised are consistent with the Constitution. We need at least one week to examine whether this Bill is constitutional. I propose a delay of one week within which the Government would also produce legislation — which they have promised in any event — to subject the works carried out by the Office of Public Works and other State authorities to planning permission. I believe that is an entirely reasonable approach. I appeal in particular to the Labour Party who have in the past shown considerable concern for the liberties of Members of this House to demonstrate that concern continues, that they will not allow this House to be taken for granted in regard to a matter of this kind.
I hoped we would not have a rehash of the speeches made earlier. The question revolves around whether this Bill is to be taken today. I do not wish to have repetition. I am calling Deputy O'Malley.
The Taoiseach, when he intervened earlier, spoke of me and other Deputies referring to the problems of planning permission that arise under this Bill. I made no reference to planning in what I said earlier; I could not because there is nothing about planning in the Bill. Planning is a totally separate matter. I understand the Government has decided to pursue that by way of appeal. This Bill does not deal with planning nor did I suggest it did. However, it would not be the first time that my words have been misrepresented by the Taoiseach.
If Second Stage of this Bill is to be guillotined in just over two hours from now, it is totally inappropriate that Committee Stage be taken today also. There are many difficult technical matters and the whole question of the relationship between this Bill and planning law will have to be worked out. There is no possible way that could be done between now and 6.45 p.m. tonight. It is totally impossible. One of the amendments my party will consider putting down on Committee Stage is to the effect that any works undertaken by a Minister or by the Commissioners of Public Works would be subject to planning permission.
The request to the Government is reasonable. I cannot see any reason time should not be given for a considered amendment that would deal with the planning aspect. It makes no sense if we have two conflicting judgments from two different High Court judges for this House to ask the Judiciary to make the decision.
That is correct.
This House should make the decision on planning in accordance with the united wishes of this House and the wishes expressed in the Programme for a Partnership Government rather than handing it over to the Judiciary and asking them to make the decision for us.
On a point of order, as it is now 11.20 a.m. the Order of Business, which is being bulldozed through here, contains a contradiction. It provides that four speakers shall have 30 minutes each, which is two hours, and in addition it provides that the Government Minister——
I am putting the question now.
I am making a point of order, Sir.
That is not a point of order, Deputy.
It is.
The point of order is that the Order of Business provides that the closing Government speaker shall be called at 1.15 p.m.
The House has control over these matters.
Because the Order of Business provides that four speakers shall have 30 minutes, it is not possible for four speakers to be given 30 minutes each and for a Minister or Minister of State to be called at 1.15 p.m.
The Deputy has made his point. Deputy Keogh is offering.
What is the answer to the point? How are you going to order business at 1.15 p.m. when the fourth speaker——
The Chair has made his decision.
This House decides the business.
The Chair does not have to answer the Deputy.
This House is deciding on an Order of Business that is contradictory.
I call Deputy Keogh.
I regret I am interrupting somebody making a very valid point. It is quite unreasonable to rush legislation through at this pace. I would like to adhere to the principle that legislation should not be rushed through in one day but the amount of time that will be allocated to the Second Stage debate is totally unreasonable. I agree that Committee Stage should not take place for a week, at least.
I wish to clarify a point in this area. The willingness of the Government to recognise the need for transparency in planning has been expressed in the Programme for a Partnership Government and will be proceeded with. It is quite reasonable for the Government to try to regularise at the earliest possible moment the serious situation which exists in relation to Government contracts, builders who are carrying them out and workers whose jobs are at risk. It is ungracious to try to misrepresent what I said and the Progressive Democrats' claim is, as usual, trying to misrepresent the facts. Deputy Cox said that under the Bill we could build nuclear stations anywhere we liked. If Deputy O'Malley would take Deputy Cox aside and have a little chat with him it would be helpful.
That is not the issue.
What limitations does the Bill put on the Minister?
We are proceeding in an emergency situation and it is the responsibility of the Government to do so.
May I say——
No. The question now is——
May I say to the Taoiseach——
Please, Deputy, desist.
I moved a motion and I am entitled to reply.
No, I must dissuade you of that notion, Deputy.
That is normal for all Deputies in the House.
Please, Deputy, the question is that the proposal for dealing with Committee Stage——
If the Government could produce this legislation in two days, why could it not produce the legislation on planning in two days? It is a question of priorities and obviously the citizen comes second to the needs of the State in the Government's list of priorities.
Deputy Bruton, allow the business to proceed.
The Government has no respect for anybody else.
This is the arrogance we have come very quickly to expect from the two Government parties.
The question is that the proposal for dealing with the Committee and Remaining Stages be agreed to, to which an amendment has been put by Deputy John Bruton.
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Bell, Michael.
- Bhamjee, Moosajee.
- Bhreathnach, Niamh.
- Bree, Declan.
- Brennan, Matt.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Broughan, Tommy.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Costello, Joe.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Ellis, John.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Brian.
- Fitzgerald, Eithne.
- Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Flood, Chris.
- Foley, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Gallagher, Pat.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hilliard, Colm M.
- Hughes, Séamus.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, James.
- McDowell, Derek.
- Moffatt, Tom.
- Morley, P.J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
- Mulvihill, John.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael. (Limerick West).
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Gerry.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Power, Seán.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Ryan, John.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Smith, Michael.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Upton, Pat.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Eamon.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Woods, Michael.
Níl
- Ahearn, Theresa.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Browne, John. (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Liam.
- Carey, Donal.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Cox, Pat.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Crowley, Frank.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Currie, Austin.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Dukes, Alan M.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Fox, Johnny.
- Foxe, Tom.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Harney, Mary.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Keogh, Helen.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McDowell, Michael.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McManus, Liz.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael, (Limerick East).
- O'Donnell, Liz.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- Owen, Nora.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, P. J.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Yates, Ivan.
The final Question is that the proposals relating to item No. 1, the State Authorities (Development and Management) Bill, 1993, be agreed to. Agreed?
No, they are not agreed to.
There is another matter to put to the House. Private Members' Business shall be No. 11 and brought to conclusion at 8.30 p.m. Is that agreed? Agreed.
The Government promised legislation to subject State agency building activity to the information requirements of the planning Acts. The legislation we will consider later today has the effect, as I understand it, of explicitly exempting the State from the planning legislation because of the definition of development used in section 2 (5). Why has the Government not introduced the promised legislation to subject the State to the requirements of the planning Acts in parallel with this legislation? This is promised legislation.
I would point out to the Deputy that it is not promised legislation; it is a commitment in the Programme for a Partnership Government. We will look at ways and means to implement it.
May I ask the Taoiseach how it is that he was able to find within two days ways and means of giving the State unlimited powers to build but was not able to find ways and means to honour a promise in this so-called Programme for Government.
This is not getting the House anywhere.
This is totally irrelevant.
When will we see the Bill?
Is the Taoiseach aware that one of his Ministers of State has written to the local authorities telling them to proceed with house plans?
Please, Deputy, that does not arise now.
In that letter is an implied threat that if they do not proceed in 1993——
Did I observe Deputy Gilmore offering?
——with those houses the money will be withdrawn.
Please, Deputy, desist. This is quite irrelevant to the Order of Business.
If the county councils have to apply for planning permission, when will the Taoiseach issue an instruction to the county councils——
I call Deputy Gilmore.
——to apply for planning permission? Will the Taoiseach tell us if county councils have to apply for planning permission?
Please, Deputy. That matter should be raised in the proper way.
As a result of High Court action, when will he instruct the county councils to prepare planning applications?
Deputy Owen must not ignore the Chair in this fashion. Deputy Gilmore.
I am sorry, but the Tánaiste or somebody must be able to answer this question. It was one of his Ministers of State who sent the letter.
The Taoiseach knows when and where not to discuss these issues. There is some hope for Dáil reform.
What will happen to the whole housing programme?
I seek clarification from the Taoiseach in relation to promised legislation and in response to the questions asked yesterday and today regarding the Government's intention to introduce legislation to require State authorities to apply for planning permission. Will the Taoiseach clarify that the intention is to require State authorities to apply for planning permission or is it for some lesser form of consultation than an application for planning permission? The Taoiseach has not replied to these questions to date.
He does not know.
That does not arise.
The Deputy should deal with that matter in the normal way.
On separate legislation, a Cheann Comhairle——
May I ask the House whether it wishes to proceed with the business we have decided upon here today, the State Authorities (Development and Management) Bill, 1993?
If the Government allowed this Bill to be dealt with in the normal way there would not be any of this debate.
On the Order of Business, and in relation to promised legislation, I read today in The Irish Times information about what the Government intends to bring before this House. It stated that the legislation will be more elaborate than what was mentioned in the Programme for Government. If The Irish Times can be told about it, can the Taoiseach tell this House what it is he intends doing in this regard?
I thought the Deputy had a specific matter to raise on the Order of Business.
This is promised legislation.
It was promised yesterday.
Was it promised in the House? Quite frankly, I do not know.
The legislative programme was promised yesterday.
We are having a two-day debate on Dáil reform starting tomorrow. Will the Taoiseach confirm if it is the intention of the Government not to reconstitute the women's affairs committee, that it is effectively abolished and that he will not bring a motion before this House to establish the committee?
That matter can be debated tomorrow during the debate on Dáil reform. That will be an opportune time to discuss that issue.
Another blow for women.
We are talking about a Bill. We have already wasted an hour and a quarter.
The Government must tell the people what is happening.
The Taoiseach is some chancer. We have wasted an hour and a quarter. The Taoiseach is using jackboot tactics to get measures through the House, aided and abetted by the elected democrat beside him.
We shall proceed with the Order of Business. Deputy Harte.
What plans has the Taoiseach to help seed potato growers in Donegal where the seed potato industry is about to collapse. Certain nods and winks——
Deputies will have to relate their remarks to the Order of Business.
I want to ask the Taoiseach why nods and winks have been the norm for the past three months.
The Deputy must proceed to raise that matter in the proper way.
The people of Donegal want to know what the Taoiseach intends to do about it.
I am sorry, Deputy, you are not entitled to raise the matter now.
The issue has been mishandled by the Government. They applied to Europe under a different fund and the Donegal seed potato growers will suffer as a result.
Members are making a mockery of the Order of Business.
Will the Taoiseach please take some kind of action?
I am proceeding now to the Order of Business proper. I call item No. 2.