It is proposed to take Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 11. It is also proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 shall be decided without debate. The debate on No. 8 shall not exceed two hours and the following provisions shall apply in relation to the debate: (i) the speeches of the Minister and of the main spokespersons for the Fine Gael Party, the Progressive Democrat Party and the Technical Group shall not exceed 20 minutes in each case; (ii) the speech of each other Member shall not exceed 10 minutes and (iii) the Minister or Minister of State shall be called on to reply not less than ten minutes before the debate is due to conclude. In the case of the resumed debate on No. 11, the speech of each Member called on shall not exceed 20 minutes. Business shall be interrupted at 3.50 p.m. The Dáil at its rising today shall adjourn until Tuesday, 27 April 1993.
Order of Business.
Is the proposal that Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 shall be decided without debate satisfactory?
There should be an opportunity to discuss Nos. 3 and 5. No. 3 provides for the use of the term "chairman" for two committees of this House and I am sure the majority of this House would prefer the use of a neutral gender term such as "chair" or "chair-person". To my knowledge, recommendations have been put forward by the Commission on the Status of Women in that regard. While I appreciate the term "chairman" has been used in the past and I am not suggesting that there is any ill intent in this proposal, I believe the Minister of State and the Government would wish to use a different term. I ask them to agree to that.
We should have a brief debate on No. 5 which concerns the introduction of a change in the rules concerning comment by Members of the House on matters supposedly sub judice, before a court or tribunal. Such proposals would command widespread support in the House but as this is a major change in procedures, Members should at least have a brief opportunity to discuss it. A debate lasting for half an hour or 45 minutes would suffice. That would allow Members to express their views. This is an important and welcome change but it should be debated, however briefly.
I support Deputy Bruton's comments and I suggest, without any offence to you, Sir, that chairpersons are genderless and in order not to offend anybody we might use the term "cathaoirleach" which is a less offensive term. It is said that, like angels, chairpersons are genderless and I hope that does not offend you, Sir.
I think Deputy Owen said there were very few angels in this House, but I do not know if I agree. I suggest also that the Interpretation Act, 1937, should be altered. Yesterday when discussing a Bill relating to the Department of Justice the Minister was referred to as "he". Now that we have a female Minister, the Interpretation Act, 1937 should be altered.
I welcome the changes in regard to sub judice matters and I am sure all Members welcome those changes. Hopefully, they will prove to be effective. I note in paragraph (4) of the motion matters can be raised only by way of notice either on the Adjournment or by way of parliamentary question. I presume, therefore, that a Member cannot refer on Second Stage to a matter which is before the courts. That might be somewhat restrictive because the requirement to give notice will still give the discretion to the Ceann Comhairle, whose rulings have often prevented us from raising matters which are before the courts. I question whether this motion will make any real difference if notice has to be given.
The points raised by the two previous speakers support the general point I wish to make, that is, so far this week we have dealt with 19 motions without debate. Many of these motions have a major impact on the way this House does its business. Obviously we are moving to reform this House — I welcome this move, and much of what has been proposed — but I should like a commitment from the Government side that, having seen how the reforms we have introduced without debate in this House work, we will be given the option to reform, adjust and change them. The purpose of debate is to define and sort out any difficulties in advance and improve the proposals. We are not being given that kind of debate on this occasion. This is a mistake. Nevertheless, I do not propose to oppose these motions. However, we need to be cautious about rushing through many motions of this kind without debate.
I am amazed at the points made by Deputy De Rossa. Reference has been made in this House for years to the need for Dáil reform. It is now time to do something in this respect instead of merely talking about it. There was a two-day debate in this House when all these views were expressed——
I am talking about specifics, not a general debate.
We are talking about details this morning which, in the orderly running of the House, I would expect to have been ironed out.
We have had a general debate but we need a debate on the specifics.
Please, Deputy.
The proposals are acceptable to me, the Government and, I presume, Deputy Bruton.
Yes. I welcome the Taoiseach's agreement, which demonstrates the value of raising matters on the Order of Business.
Indeed.
Can we hear the Taoiseach's reply, please?
As I said, I would expect these kinds of details to be raised at the Whips meetings——
Unlike the Taoiseach, the Whips are not God.
——so that we would not have to waste time discussing them in the House.
The House has a function in these matters too.
I do not know if these issues are raised in the House because someone wants his name in the paper.
The Taoiseach is spending a lot of money go get his name in the paper.
No, I am not. Perhaps the Deputy does not trust his party's Whip; maybe he does not trust some members of his party.
Other people spend a lot of time trying to keep their names out of the paper.
With regard to the sub judice rule, it is clear that the approach being adopted is a practical one. Having listened to the points made by Deputy Harney, the bulk of what is being proposed here was proposed by the Progressive Democrats Party when it was in Government. It would be grossly unfair to the Chair to expect him make instant decisions in this regard. Consequently, the Chair is entitled to receive a notice about this matter. The approach being adopted is a practical one, and I suggest that we proceed with it.
I propose that we delete item No. 5, which deals with the sub judice rule, from the list of items to be taken without debate. Time should be provided for a discussion, however brief, during which Members of the House and the Minister of State who drafted this motion could examine the thinking behind it. Members who know what these rules mean in practice are more likely to abide by them than Members who have been asked——
I shall have to put the question now.
It was not agreed by the Whips.
May I
Sorry, Deputy, we cannot have a debate now.
I wish to make what I consider to be a helpful intervention. As the House will be aware, there will be a full day's debate on the new committees shortly after the Dáil resumes. That debate will cover the foreign affairs committee and the other committees. It should be possible, with the agreement of the House, to allocate a half hour for a debate on item No. 5 during that debate on the efficient running of the House and the committees.
That is a reasonable proposal.
I understood that item No. 5 was agreed by the main Opposition party. This matter was discussed for two hours during the two-day debate. I have no objection to allocating a further half hour to it after the Easter recess, but I would prefer if proposals which were agreed would remain agreed.
I am putting the question now.
I wish to——
Sorry, the Chair at this time allows the Leaders of the various parties to put a point of view. I cannot allow an extension of this, Deputy.
In view of what the Minister of State has said, I will withdraw my amendment.
It is a different point——
That may be so, but the Deputy's Leader should have mentioned that.
Deputy De Rossa should have used his angel power.
He is the archangel.
Is the proposal that items Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 be taken without debate agreed? Agreed. Are the proposals for dealing with item No. 8 agreed? Agreed. Are the proposals for dealing with item No. 11, the budget debate, satisfactory? Agreed. Is the proposal that business be interrupted today at 3.50 p.m. agreed? Agreed. Are the proposals for the Adjournment of the House for the Easter recess agreed?
No, Sir.
Does the Deputy wish to work on Good Friday?
This is only the second occasion since I became a Member of the House 24 years ago that the House will not meet the week after Easter week. I wondered why this was the case but now I know. I see from one of today's newspapers that the Taoiseach is travelling to America during that week to attend a Fianna Fáil fund raising dinner.
That is the cheapest of political jibes.
I do not believe that this House should cease to do its work merely because the Taoiseach has to attend a Fianna Fáil fund raising dinner, presumably at his party's expense, in New York or Boston. The House should resume on 20 April, and not 27 April.
That is the cheapest political jibe I have heard in this House for a considerable period of time.
It is in today's edition of The Irish Times——
Do we have a democratic system where I am listened to or am I to be shouted down? Which is it to be?
The Taoiseach can take up a collection.
There are plenty of other activities involved in that trip, if the Deputy chose to mention them. However, he chose to ignore them. He must not be interested in seeing international investment coming into Ireland, cultural development between Ireland and the United States and many other activities.
The Taoiseach has only come back from the United States.
The Taoiseach dealt with all these issues when he was in the United States for the St. Patrick's Day celebrations.
There is a vacuum.
Deputy Bruton might have mentioned that this is Holy Week.
Is it a reflection on the leadership over there that the Deputies cannot keep quiet?
The Taoiseach is under pressure.
May I appeal to the Chair to keep some order on the opposite side of the House?
Please, Deputies.
This is Holy Thursday. I ask Deputy Bruton to try to think when the Dáil last sat on Holy Thursday before. I ask him to remember that the Easter recess is two weeks, the same as in previous years.
Why should the House facilitate the Taoiseach who is going to America to attend a Fianna Fáil fund-raising dinner?
The Deputy is being hypocritical and looking for cheap publicity when he knows that St Patrick's Day fell on a Wednesday, we took part of our Easter holidays at that time and we are taking the remainder now.
The Taoiseach is embarrassed.
The Taoiseach is making heavy weather out of this.
The Dáil has lost no sitting time.
I think the Taoiseach doth protest too much.
That is a very laboured speech.
Fianna Fáil must be badly stuck for money.
The Taoiseach does not want the Tánaiste to take over.
Deputy Mary Harney.
On behalf of the Progressive Democrats, I wish the Ceann Comhairle, the Taoiseach, the Government and all Members of the House a very happy Easter. I hope that the Taoiseach does not raise too much money for Fianna Fáil in America. Can the Taoiseach say when the Government intend to move the writ for the Mayo West and Dublin South Central by-elections?
The Government will move the writ in due course. I wish to put it on the record that this is the shortest Easter recess we have had since I took over as Taoiseach.
This Dáil has the least number of sitting days of any Dáil since its election.
Deputy Quill rose.
Deputy Quill, I must dispose of the Order of Business first. It is proposed that the Dáil at its rising today shall adjourn until Tuesday, 27 April 1993, to which an amendment has been put by Deputy John Bruton for an alternate date. I am putting the amendment in the following form: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand".
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Bell, Michael.
- Bhreathnach, Niamh.
- Bree, Declan.
- Brennan, Matt.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Broughan, Tommy.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Costello, Joe.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Ellis, John.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Brian.
- Fitzgerald, Eithne.
- Flood, Chris.
- Foley, Denis.
- Foxe, Tom.
- Gallagher, Pat.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Smith, Michael.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kenny, Seán.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, James.
- McDowell, Derek.
- Moffat, Tom.
- Morley, P. J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
- Nolan, M. J.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Gerry.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Penrose, William.
- Power, Seán.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Walsh, Eamon.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Woods, Michael.
Níl
- Ahearn, Theresa.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Carey, Donal.
- Connor, John.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Currie, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Dukes, Alan M.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Kenny, Enda.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Paul.
- Nealon, Ted.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- Owen, Nora.
- Yates, Ivan.
Considering the Government parties have more than 100 Deputies their turnout is not exactly brilliant.
Considering that Fine Gael do not honour Whips' agreements any more——
On a point of order, may I ask the Taoiseach — in view of the fact that he will be absent from the country for that period — if the Tánaiste will be acting Taoiseach in his absence?
Please, Deputy, that is not a point of order.
The Deputy should read the Constitution.
A Cheann Comhairle——
Deputy Higgins, please, Deputy Rabbitte had been offering on the Order of Business.
May I ask the Taoiseach whether he is concerned that the country will be in the custody of a man, the mouse who roared in the House a month ago and who disappeared into the floor boards at the tribunal of inquiry into the beef processing industry this week?
Deputy Higgins, please desist from any further interruptions.
I am calling Deputy Rabbitte and will then call Deputy Quill.
A Cheann Comhairle, I was very hurt at the way you ruled me out earlier. I found a way, Sir, to raise the same point and be in order. It relates to item No. 6 on the Order Paper — the Register of Members' Interests. Since legislation has been promised on this, a Cheann Comhairle, I think you are going to have to hear me. What I wanted to put to the Taoiseach was——
A nice way of getting around the Chair.
Is it working?
What I wanted to put to the Taoiseach was the report to be drawn up by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. Is it proposed that the essence of that will be enshrined in impending legislation or will that report be prepared at all before the legislation is introduced? In other words, is the legislation which was promised for next term, now postponed or is it likely to be brought before the House, as promised?
The Committee on Procedure and Privileges will proceed to put the report in place. Obviously it will be taken into account when the legislation is being prepared.
In the light of statements made at the conference of the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors in relation to the age at which young people now stand to be sucked into a lifetime of crime, may I request the Taoiseach — under promised legislation — to ensure that the juvenile justice Bill will be introduced in this House in the next session?
I have already given the House that commitment on a number of occasions.
Will the Taoiseach say whether it will be introduced in the next session?
I have already given that commitment for the next session.
Deputy Molloy is offering.
Can the Taoiseach say now—
Please, Deputy, this should not give rise to argument. The Deputy should remember that there is also Question Time. Deputy Molloy has been offering.
I said mid-year, towards the end of the next session.
Deputy Molloy has been offering. Deputy Quill must desist.
Would the Taoiseach say whether the Government propose moving the writ for the two by-elections in the next session?
We had that earlier.
That is not in order now Deputy. I am calling Deputy John Bruton.
If the question was asked earlier——
We have had that question, Deputy.
The Deputy is canvassing on his own. The Deputy's election is not only——
He does not answer any questions inside the House or outside it.
May I ask the Taoiseach what he is afraid of?
I am calling Deputy John Bruton.
Sir, there has been an amount of controversy in the House about national heritage matters. May I ask the Taoiseach when the promised Bill to put the National Heritage Council on a statutory footing will be introduced in the House? Also, could that Bill be taken in conjunction with the promised legislation to put the Board of Trustees of the National Museum on a statutory and independent basis? When is this legislation likely to be presented?
I am not aware of any proposals in relation to forthcoming legislation about the National Museum. In regard to the National Heritage Council being put on a statutory basis, work is proceeding on that legislation. We hope to introduce it in the next session.
May I refer the Taoiseach to Question No. 206 of 6 April 1993 in regard to the National Museum? If this body is to be given an independent statutory mandate I think he will find that will require legislation; otherwise, it will not be independent. Given that the Government has committed itself, in the reply to that question, to an independent Board of Trustees for the National Museum legislation must be introduced. Would the Taoiseach consult the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht to inquire when this very welcome Bill is to be introduced?
These are matters which can be dealt with in so many other ways.
This is entirely in order, Sir.
I know it is in order but it can be dealt with in other ways.
Seeing that we have all the dramatis personae here, who would be more than willing to give an answer, and I can see the Minister straining at the bit to reply——
I must dissuade too many Members from offering just now. I must go on to the business of the House proper.
Perhaps the Minister would reply.
They cannot keep up with it over there.
A lucky dip.
In view of the fact that appointments have been made to the Environmental Protection Agency would the Taoiseach say when we can expect that agency to commence its work?
What legislation is involved here?
I wish to ask about legislation promised in the House and alluded to by the Minister for Education in the recent Private Members' debate on the regional technical college for Mayo, which was turned down. As regards the promise made by the Minister about third level legislation, which is mentioned in the Programme for Government, will legislation be enacted for the third level sector——
Let us come to the point, please.
——which will preserve its diversity and enhance its developmental role? What legislation is envisaged in this area?
The Deputy should put down a question on that matter. If he puts a straight question rather than trying to prepare ground for a by-election in Mayo, it will be answered.
A specific commitment was given in this regard. Did the Taoiseach even read the programme?
Yes.
He did not read it and he does not know what is in it. What part of the programme refers to this matter?
Deputy Higgins, please.
What part of the programme refers to this matter?
It is 30 pages too far.
Deputy Higgins, you will please observe the Chair and restrain yourself.
It is appalling that the Taoiseach does not even know what is in the programme, nor does the craftsman behind him.
The Deputy should raise that matter in another way. If disorder continues I will go on to the business of the House straight away.
These people agreed to the date for the adjournment and then went back on their word.
May I ask the Taoiseach if legislation to implement the Culliton report will be introduced in the next session? Has the Government plans to introduce legislation to create competition in the delivery of public transport? As the Taoiseach is aware, a Bill was well advanced by the last Government——
I appeal for brevity.
——called the Bus Competition Bill. Will that or a similar Bill be introduced by the Government in the coming session?
Legislation in relation to competition in transport is in the course of preparation. As I have already said in the House, the Minister for Enterprise and Employment is proceeding at an accelerated pace in relation to the Culliton recommendations and he expects to be in a position to deal with the matter next session.
May I ask the Taoiseach if he can assure the House that there are no John Burt style financial arrangements in place for advisers or staff in his Department to run the Government generally?
I am proceeding now to item No. 3.