Vol. 430 No. 2
It is proposed to take No. 5. It is also proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that statements shall now be made on the sub judice rule which shall be confined to a spokesperson for the Government, the Fine Gael Party, the Progressive Democrats Party and the Technical Group, and which shall not exceed ten minutes in each case.
Private Members' Business shall be No. 1.
There is only one proposal to be put to the House. Are the proposed arrangements for dealing with statements on the sub judice rule agreed? Agreed.
I am sure the Taoiseach will have seen in one of our national newspapers today reports of the widespread availability of guns for rent for the commission of crimes in the city of Dublin. The Government has promised legislation to improve the law concerning offences against the person and in particular more appropriate sentencing for the use of weapons of this kind. Can the Taoiseach give any indication as to when the legislation to deal with the rash of armed crime will be introduced?
I will communicate with the Deputy when I have definite information.
The legislation committee which was established in this House last week had its first meeting this morning at which, I understand, a chairman was elected. At least three members of the committee were not notified of the meeting, two of whom were from my party. I understand they were subjected to criticism by some Deputies for their non-attendance. Their attendance was impossible when they were not notified. I wish to protest that the meeting was held without informing them. That is not good enough and I would ask you, or your office, to look into the matter and see how this arose and why these three Deputies, out of 30, were the only Deputies who were not notified.
I understand that matter is being looked into.
Could the Taoiseach tell the House when he proposes to make time available to discuss yesterday's announcement of a decision by the Minister for Enterprise and Employment on the implementation of the recommendations in the Cullition report?
That debate can take place, as is usual, when the legislation comes before the House this session.
Do the various lists of legislation included in the Cullition report constitute promised legislation in the context of this House, and will we be able to ask the Taoiseach whether he is fulfilling various schedules set out for the introduction of such legislation in the House?
I have already said that the legislation will be introduced this session and the Deputy will have a full opportunity to discuss it then.
That is not the question I asked. We have a list here which the Government say is promised legislation on a number of fronts. I simply want to know will the Taoiseach admit questions on the Order of Business as to progress in introducing this legislation?
Questions can be put down in the normal way to the Minister for Enterprise and Employment and will be responded to. It is the Chair who decides what is in order, not me.
That is not the question. The Taoiseach is wriggling again.
When will the Dáil be given an opportunity to discuss the choices that must be made about how the money that is available to the Irish people from the European Community is to be used between now and 1998, or will all the decisions in this regard be cooked up behind closed doors within the Government's closed bureaucratic circle before we in this House are given any chance to have an input?
The Deputy is well aware that choices in this regard are a matter for Government.
In a democracy would the Government not see any value in allowing Members of this House and members of the general public to participate publicily in the discussion before the matter is finalised, or does the Government regard this money from Europe as its private property?
The decision is for the Government and it is the duty of the Government to make it.
In view of all the panoply and fanfare in regard to the document yesterday, can the Taoiseach allow some Government time for the purpose of discussing not only what is promised by way of legislation this session but what should have been included in the document, had it been a faithful implementation of the Culliton report? Would the Taoiseach agree that this House, if the document is important, should at least be able to devote some of its time to discussing the shortcomings of the document before legislative proposals are brought before us?
When is it proposed that the Waste Disposal Bill will come before the House? Will we have it before the Minister for the Environment has built his toxic waste incinerator?
I answered that only last week. Deputies repeat the same question time and again on the Order of Business. I said that the Waste Disposal Bill will come before this House later this year.
I am still awaiting an answer from the Taoiseach as to whether he will afford Government time to discuss the document which is before us?
That is not appropriate on the Order of Business.
Will the legislation to be brought before the House this session by the Minister for Enterprise and Employment encompass the proposed establishment of An Board Bia which is intended to be the downtown office of the IFA, or will that be left to the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry?
There is no promised legislation in this regard. The Deputy is incorrect in assigning responsibility where he is assigning it.
Am I to understand that the Taoiseach does not intend to allow the various committees to examine the spending of Structural Funds? I ask this in view of the Taoiseach's comment that these matters would remain the private property of Government.
All spending contained in Estimates can of course be discussed in the Estimates.
After it has been spent.
