It is proposed to take Nos. 1, 3, 7 and 2. It is also proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders that: 1. Nos. 1 and 3 shall be decided without debate and 2. the proceedings on Committee Stage of No. 7, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 5 pm. 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 Justice. Private Members' Business shall be No. 10.
Order of Business.
Is the proposal that Nos. 1 and 3 be decided without debate satisfactory?
No. 3 relates to debates on the past activities of the European Community. This matter has been debated already, so one cannot ask for it to be debated a second time. Does the Taoiseach consider that we do need a debate on the options for the use of European Structural and Cohesion Funds before decisions are taken? The Irish people, through this House, are entitled to be consulted on these decisions because it is their money, not that of the Government, that will be spent.
There needs to be transparency in spending.
I am surprised at the repetition because I said yesterday that decisions in the first instance are a matter for Government.
Does the Government see no merit in allowing Members of this House to have an input into this matter? I remember particularly Deputy Quinn when he was in Opposition making much of the need for a timely consultative and debating process before decisions were taken. Now that he and his colleagues are in Government with Fianna Fáil, is the Toaiseach going to follow the advice offered by Deputy Quinn when in Opposition and allow a debate in this House before decisions are taken to commit the people's money——
Sorry, the Deputy is entering into an area which is not in conformity with the subject matter before us.
It is contrary to the principle of regionalisation.
I suggest that the question asked by Deputy Bruton is in order as it arises in respect of a note which you submitted to Members pointing out what is in order, that is, matters relating to Bills and other documents referred to on the Order Paper. Item No. 5 on today's Order Paper deals with Estimates and those Estimates are listed on a number of pages. It is clear from this year's Budget Statement that the Estimates for many Departments include anticipated Structural Fund expenditure.
I am aware of what is and what is not in order at this time. The proposal before us is that Nos. 1 and 3 be taken without debate.
I am making the point that the question is entirely in order and therefore we should be entitled to ask the Government to debate the issue.
As the House knows, I have allowed the Taoiseach to comment on the matter.
The Taoiseach has sought to suggest that this matter is out of order but I argue that, by your own ruling, it is in order.
Let us not haggle about these matters.
The issue is one of substance. Surely this House is entitled to debate issues in relation to Structural Funds.
If the Deputy wants to be specific about that matter he should put down a motion.
I draw your attention, Sir, to the fact that there is a commitment in the Programme for Government that the Structural Funds will be discussed in the National Economic and Social Forum which includes not only politicians but also the social partners. The Taoiseach appears to be reneging on this commitment in the Programme for Government.
Is the Taoiseach willing to give a commitment to a discussion in this House on the use of the Structural and Cohesion Funds before decisions are taken so that opinions about options may be offered by all elected Members? It is not only members of the Cabinet who were elected to make these decisions; all of us have an opinion to offer which might be useful. Will the Taoiseach give an undertaking that there will be a debate on this matter before decisions are taken?
There is a new system for discussing Estimates. If Deputies Cox and Bruton want to discuss aspects of EC funds that are part of the Estimates, they will have every opportunity to do so during the Estimates debates. The choices that have to be made in relation to Structural Funds are the responsibility of the Government and we have to stand over them. Opposition parties have the freedom to ask that we put in everything.
That is not the question.
(Interruptions.)
This matter may not be debated now.
It is a disgrace to the Oireachtas, and the Taoiseach knows that.
I have allowed quite some latitude on this subject.
In the absence of any agreement to a debate in the House on these funds before they are committed, I cannot agree to this proposal this morning.
So much for open Government.
(Interruptions.)
So much for Whips' agreements.
I am putting the question.
(Interruptions.)
Order. I am putting the question now. I am on my feet putting a question.
(Interruptions.)
The question is: "That Nos. 1 and 3 shall be decided without debate".
Question put and declared carried.
Are the proposals for dealing with the Committee Stage of No. 7 satisfactory and agreed? Agreed.
I note that the Order, with which I do not disagree, says that the Bill will finish at 5 p.m. However, it says that only amendments acceptable to the Minister for Justice will be taken. Will the Taoiseach say whether the Minister for Justice will be here to take the Bill because so far in this Dáil she has not taken a Committee Stage of any Bill? It is a disgrace that we constantly have to deal with the Minister of State, although he is a very able Deputy. The Minister is very good at making statements outside this House, but she has not yet taken an opportunity to come into this House and deal with Committee Stage of any Bills from her Department. Will the Minister be here this morning to take this Bill?
The Deputy knows that the Minister is at a conference in Killarney. I would not take one iota from the abilities of Deputy O'Dea to handle this matter competently——
She is at a conference every week.
——if the Minister is not back in time.
(Interruptions.)
I take it that the proposal with regard to dealing with No. 7, Committee Stage, is satisfactory and agreed to.
For the sake of peace in Europe I am sure that all of us in this House will be concerned that the decision is taken to day by the remaining party to agree to the Vance/Owen plan in Bosnia. That being the case, the question will arise about Irish participation. The Government indicated that legislation to allow Ireland to participate in peace enforcement will be considered in the context of Somalia, in reply to Question No. 178 of 4 May. Will the Taoiseach state whether the Government considered whether Irish troops would take part in peace enforcement in Europe, in Bosnia in particular, in the event that an agreement is reached?
Is legislation promised in that area?
In reply to the Deputy's question, the Government has not considered it.
The Government acknowledged that it has a request to consider this matter in respect of UNSOM, concerning Somalia. The same issue of principle arises with regard to Bosnia. In view of the importance of a timely response on this issue for the sake of peace in Europe, is the Government prepared to make an early decision on whether it will promote legislation to enable Irish troops to participate in both those locations for the preservation of peace and the saving of life?
The Deputy asked if the Government had considered it and I said it had not. Of course, the Government will consider it when the matter comes before it.
What about the speech the Tánaiste made in New York?
Does the Minister for Enterprise and Employment intend today to go to the headquarters of the Amdahl company in an effort to save the 150 jobs under threat just as he went to try to save the Digital jobs?
I am anxious to assist the Deputy in dealing with that important matter——
Is it the case that once again Dublin will be left hanging with a loss of jobs with nobody to fight for us?
——but, clearly, it is not in order now.
Perhaps the Minister might tell us whether he will go. He was there in March, but he did not save the jobs then.
I seek the Chair's assistance. I put down a specific question to the Taoiseach regarding his recent meeting with the authorities of the GAA and the question was transferred to the Minister for Education. How can a specific question be transferred to another Minister? What can I do to appeal that action whether it was taken by the Taoiseach or by officials of the House?
The Deputy will be aware that the Chair has no control over the transfer of questions. That is an internal Cabinet matter, and always has been.
Will the Cabinet explain it?
Most questions to him are transferred if he wishes it. He avoids most questions.
I am here every day.
We have been reading in the papers about the happy elevation of various backbenchers to jobs on committees which have not yet even met. With regard to the one that did meet, two of the groups in this House were not invited to it. Does the Taoiseach condone this activity where chocolate sweets are doled out as consolation prizes to disappointed backbenchers, without the committees even having met?
Deputy McGahon is offering.
In the absence of the Tánaiste will the Taoiseach state if there is an agreed Northern Ireland policy between the two partners in Government? Does that policy contain any of the sentiments recently expressed by Deputy Bree? Does the Minister agree the policy will be practical?
That matter should be raised in a more appropriate manner.
Am I right about it then?
(Interruptions.)
On promised legislation, will the Taoiseach say whether the Bill on freedom of information, promised on Monday by the Minister of State, Deputy Eithne Fitzgerald, will encompass the necessary regulations to implement the freedom of access to information on the environment directive which is long passed its implementation date here, or if we will have separate regulations in relation to that latter directive?
Legislation was not promised in the House. The Deputy can put down questions to obtain information.
It is an obligation.
It is a directive.
These questions should not give rise to argument or debate.
The Government should not argue. They should just tell us when they are doing it.
Could I be more specific, to help the Taoiseach? When will regulations be brought in, if, after the High Court judgment in late March on the angel dust issue, we are in order in implementing EC directives by regulations?
Regulations do not arise at this stage.
It is an EC directive on freedom of access to information.
No, it does not arise. This is a matter as to whether legislation is promised and when it may be introduced. Regulations should not be referred to at this stage.
It is obligatory.
The regulations will have to be introduced by legislation as a result of the judgment of the High Court at the end of March. When will that happen?
Deputy Doyle may not continue to argue this matter. There are many other ways of raising it and finalising it.
This has been promised. It is effectively legislation. When will it happen?
It applies to regulations and is not in order on the Order of Business.
(Interruptions.)
Perhaps I could help the Taoiseach, if that does not sound too arrogant. The Environment Protection Agency Act allows the Minister for the Environment to bring in the regulations, as the legislation is there.
Will the Taoiseach, for the Minister for Justice, say whether the promised Criminal Justice Bill to deal with intimidating gangs and drinking in public places will be dealt with in this session? It was promised in the last session.
We hope to have it this session.
Will the Taoiseach say if freedom of access to information will apply to Members of this House shortly?
(Interruptions.)
Let us have regard to what is in order now.
(Interruptions.)