It is proposed to take Nos. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 22, and 4. It is also proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that: 1. business shall be interrupted at 12 midnight; 2. Nos. 11 to 17, inclusive, and No. 19 shall be decided without debate; 3. the proceedings on the Report and Final Stages of No. 22, if not previously concluded shall be brought to a conclusion not later than one hour following commencement of the debate by one question which shall be put from the Chair and which in relation to amendments include only those set down or accepted by the Minister for Enterprise and Employment and 4. the Second Stage of No. 4 shall be taken today and the proceedings thereon, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 12 midnight tonight. Private Members' Business shall be No. 26.
Order of Business.
Is the proposal to deal with No. 1, that business shall be interrupted at 12 midnight, satisfactory and agreed?
I do not wish to object to this proposal. I merely want to acknowledge the fact that considerable progress has been made in negotiations between the Whips in reaching agreement on the taking of business. It is our expectation that the Government will agree to the taking of Committee Stages of most, if not all, of the Bills in Special Committee as requested. I welcome the progress made during the weekend by the Whips in regard to this matter.
Is the proposal that business shall be interrupted at 12 midnight satisfactory and agreed? Agreed. Are the proposals to deal with No. 11 to No. 17, inclusive, and that No. 19 shall be decided without debate, agreed?
It is proposed to take eight motions and pass them without debate. It is not unusual to pass one motion without debate, but there is involved here a number of motions dealing with many topics relating to various Departments and it is remarkable that they should be taken together. The most significant matter is that motion No. 18 on the Order Paper is not being moved. If it were proposed to operate that guillotine for the remainder of the week there would have been intense opposition to it. My party put down an amendment to that motion but it was not circulated because the Government agreed not to proceed with the guillotine motion. I hope that as No. 18 has been withdrawn the discussions in regard to the business for the remainder of this week and for next week will be more fruitful than was the case up to this morning. In particular, I want to reiterate the offer that my party made on a number of occasions to the Government, there is no reason this House should not sit beyond 9 July. We are happy to sit after that date. If some of the important Bills listed under the former guillotine motion which need time for debate, are to be properly debated the House should agree to sit for a further week in order to do that. Some of those Bills are fundamental.
Obviously, I welcome the fact that the proposed motion attempting to guillotine all Bills going through the House this week has been removed from the Order Paper. I welcome the fact that the Government decided not to guillotine those Bills because it would have led to serious disruption of the business of this House.
The proposal to take Nos. 11 to 17 and No. 19 without debate is a serious matter of using this House as a rubber stamp on what many people may regard as minor technical matters but which in many cases refer to serious international agreements which should be dealt with at some level in this House, either by the House itself or by the special committees which were established with a view to dealing with such matters.
I should make a point in regard to Item No. 3 which we have not yet reached, to avoid annoying you later. The proposals give an extra 45 minutes or so to Second Stage of the Defence (Amendment) Bill. However, that is still inadequate in view of the major change in our international obligations. It seems that it is being rushed through this House with undue haste and time is not being given for a public debate on the matter. I want to register my protest about the way it is being dealt with and simply point to the briefing we have just had regarding the Foreign Affairs Committee by the Minister for Foreign Affairs which threw up major unanswered questions in relation to the implication of this move.
It is important to make a few points in relation to this. Let me make it quite clear at the outset that the Government will provide sufficient time. If people in this House want to sit into July and August, so be it, as far as the Government is concerned.
Withdraw the guillotines.
That motion has not even been moved. We all listened to the Deputy. Let me give the facts. There are seven Bills on the Order Paper this week. One, the Industrial Development Bill, was brought forward at the request of the Opposition; we provided a lot of time last week and we are providing more time today. Three other Bills, the Road Traffic Bill, the Criminal Justice Bill, and the Irish Aviation Authority Bill are finalising Second Stage to provide Committee Stage debate for the committees during July and September. I do not think anybody in this House would object to that. Of the remaining three Bills a debate has been taking place for the last three or four months on the Defence (Amendment) Bill, the one referred to by Deputy De Rossa, lest anyone think we are trying to rush anything through.
It was only published last week.
There will be enough time. I am not aware of anybody looking for additional time to debate the Statistics Bill. What we are left with is the Defence (Amendment) Bill. As far as the Government is concerned there is plenty of time for debate. Where we cannot reach agreement, we will make the decisions but we hope to continue to reach agreement with the Whips on the opposite side.
I have a simple request.
We cannot have a general debate now. I am asking if item No. 2, Nos. 11 to 17, inclusive, and No. 19 shall be decided without debate?
Deputy Rabbitte rose.
Deputy, I am putting a question, please resume your seat. I want to clarify this matter. Is it agreed?
No, sir. I want to make a brief comment on No. 13.
I will not allow a general debate at this stage, Deputy. I am putting the question.
Sir, it is bad enough having the Government telling us what to do but I want to make a comment on No. 13. There will be no necessity for you to divide the House if you hear me.
Please, Deputy, restrain yourself.
I am restraining myself. I am perfectly restrained.
I am conforming to the procedure at this time, having heard the views——
I indicated to you, Sir, before you rose that I wanted to make a comment on No. 13.
Deputy Rabbitte, resume your seat. You may not interrupt the Chair in this fashion. In conformity with the normal procedure I have allowed the main spokesperson for the Opposition to make a statement on these matters. I heard the Taoiseach reply and I will not allow a general debate on the matter. If the question must be put, I will put it now.
I would like to remind you, Sir, that any Deputy of this House who wants to raise a matter on the Order of Business is entitled to do so. It is bad enough having the Government telling us how much time we should have, but you are growing intolerant. It is not helping the processing of the legislation through this House.
These reflections should not be made.
I do not wish to make any reflections on you but if you will not permit a simple statement, then it is intolerance.
The procedure at this stage is that I hear the spokespersons for the main parties, but I will hear the Deputy if he has a relevant point on this subject.
Thank you, Sir, because it is a bit late now to bring in new rules.
I assure the Deputy that he will not be intimidated, bullied or browbeaten.
Aithníonn ciaróg ciaróg eile. I acknowledge what the Taoiseach said in regard to the revised schedule. However, it was not the original schedule put to the Whips. The fact that all Bills, except the Defence (Amendment) Bill, are now being taken to Second Stage and going into Committee thereafter is an immense improvement, I acknowledge that. However, I wish to comment on the matters to be taken by motion without debate and on the specific matter of No. 13 which relates to the European Investment Bank and is, in effect, tantamount to an amendment to the Treaty of Accession to the European Community. It is a matter that could provide a major subject of debate in terms of employment implications. It is regrettable, and it ought to be recorded, that the habit has grown of taking important motions like this without debate in the House. Time should be found to discuss that matter. I apologise for wearying you earlier, Sir.
The Chair is not wearied by such minor matters. Is the proposal for dealing with Item No. 2, that is, Nos. 11 to 17, inclusive, and No. 19, agreed to? Agreed. Are the proposals for dealing with No. 22 satisfactory?
On item No. 3, the Taoiseach is misleading the House if he is suggesting that we had adequate time to debate No. 22. There were 38 amendments last week and none of them was reached on Committee Stage. Today there are 28 amendments and I foresee that, at most, two will be reached. This should have been taken in Committee as the other Bills, thankfully, now will be.
In regard to No. 22, the position, as read out by the Taoiseach, is different from that circulated. I understand that the debate is now being further curtailed to one hour from whatever time it starts, which is very different from what is here and which would allow for two hours or more. The Bill is very important. The Taoiseach referred to all the time that had been made available for it. The Second Stage took three and a half hours and Committee Stage consisted of the first amendment being discussed but not decided, and not getting beyond that. The curtailment of Report Stage still further, from two and a quarter hours to one hour, is certainly not giving sufficient time to debate it. There are strongly held views in regard to many aspects of that Bill which will now be enacted without any proper discussion. This is most unsatisfactory. I am prepared not to vote against this further curtailment of time on this Bill provided the Government is more reasonable in relation to the remainder of the week and, in particular, in regard to the proposals in relation to the Tax Amnesty Bill to be taken tomorrow. It is proposed that the debate will go on until 6 o'clock which means, effectively, four and a half hours' debating time. That is not sufficient.
That is tomorrow's business.
The Second Stage of that Bill should go on until midnight tomorrow night. The Taoiseach mentioned that these Bills were being put in for the purpose of giving work to the committee during the summer.
Deputy O'Malley, let us deal with our agenda for today.
It is proposed to have this Bill passed by the end of the week.
Does the Deputy want it in committee?
The Government always intended to provide Committee Stage Bills for the committees during July and September.
A Deputy
Except for the Bill that was dealt with last week.
We will continue to try to find agreement with the Whips opposite. Where we cannot get agreement it is our responsibility to order business and we intend to do so.
Are the proposals for dealing with Item No. 3 agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 4 agreed?
The Taoiseach indicated earlier that he was prepared to give us all the time we wanted, even into August, if we sought it. Therefore, will he drop the guillotine he proposes in relation to item No. 4 tonight, and allow the debate to run its normal course until it concludes? It would be a mark of the Taoiseach's seriousness about providing adequate time to deal with this issue.
So far as the Government is concerned the Whips can meet at 11 p.m. tonight to assess the position and decide if they wish to continue, we have no objection to that.
I take it the proposal is agreed? Agreed.
I know the Taoiseach makes that proposal in a constructive spirit, but some thought should be given to the staff of this House in relation to such arrangements.
I acknowledge the progress in respect of a response from the Government to the claims by the Opposition Whips in relation to the more efficient and proper running of the business of the House. There are still areas of disagreement which, I hope, can be worked out to Members' satisfaction.
There is no need for a review at 11 p.m., which the Taoiseach offered. If the debate works its way through——
That matter cannot be debated now.
If there are more speakers offering their time——
It is still a matter for the Whips to decide if they so desire.
It is a matter for the Taoiseach. He is proposing a guillotine on this item now and I ask him to withdraw it.
There are reports of forthcoming large increases in electricity prices. Will the Taoiseach indicate when the promised legislation on the restructuring of the Electricity Supply Board will come before the House?
I will consider the position in relation to a promised Bill — the Energy Bill — and I will communicate with the Deputy. I assure him the Government has not approved any ESB price increases.
Will the Taoiseach indicate if it is Government policy to allow Teagasc to sell off vital research facilities around the country. Is he aware that——
I want to assist the Deputy but this is not the time.
May I ask the Taoiseach——
The Deputy must raise the matter in a more appropriate manner at a more appropriate time.
I am surprised the Taoiseach is not answering the question.
The Deputy should put down a question.
My point relates to the matter raised by Deputy O'Malley in regard to promised legislation, specifically the tax amnesty Bill. As it is proposed to give two amnesties for the price of one, will the Taoiseach take on board Deputy O'Malley's request that more time will be provided to debate this measure? It must be the first Bill in the history of the State in which it is proposed to implement extraordinary fines against Revenue Commissioner personnel with the prospect of such personnel being jailed for carrying out their work against people who have broken the law in terms of complying with the tax laws.
The principles involved in this Bill have been discussed in this House for four days. A liberal amount of time will be provided for Second Stage and many of the matters raised by Deputy Rabbitte are more appropriate to Committee Stage when there will be plenty of time to discuss these matters.
Will the Taoiseach indicate if my understanding is correct that the Government is not proceeding with the Extradition Bill? If that is the case what is the reason?
There are certain difficulties to be ironed out in relation to it. The Bill is not being abandoned as some people in this House appear to have suggested in the last hour or two. The Bill will proceed as soon as the legal problems have been ironed out. We will not risk bringing the Bill forward until we are certain it is watertight in relation to the areas with which we are dealing.
Is the Taoiseach aware that the legal problems associated with this have been well known for some years and were sorted out a long time ago? In view of what is at stake and the long period of preparation will the Taoiseach agree that this is one area in which it is worth enacting legislation? This House should sit for an additional week to deal with it rather than putting it back to some indefinite future date.
It is not in order to debate the matter now and the Order of Business cannot be turned into Question Time.
I would like to assure Deputy O'Malley and all Members of this House that there are difficulties in relation to that Bill, which were brought to the attention of the Government in the last few days. That is why the Bill is not being proceeded with. I am sure Deputy O'Malley and others will also appreciate that a similar Bill will go through the House of Commons, but not until the autumn.
I hate to remind the Taoiseach that this legislation was promised in the Joint Programme he entered into with his last partners, the Progressive Democrats. The Taoiseach did not get around to dealing with the legislation during that partnership. Will the Taoiseach ensure that the Second Stage of this legislation will be taken in the House before the summer recess? If amendments are necessary they can be dealt with on Committee Stage with a view to Report Stage not being taken until the next session? Will the Taoiseach give that promise as a mark of his seriousness in regard to addressing the matter in view of the deplorable record of Governments in which he has been involved in dealing with this legislation?
If the Bill is published it will be taken and it was always our intention to deal with it. We will not risk a possible challenge to this Bill. The Deputy is aware of the likelihood of a challenge to any Bill we introduce. The possible difficulties in relation to the Bill have only been brought to our attention in the last few days and we will not rush it through.
The Taoiseach has promised to extend the sitting of the House, if necessary. In that context is he prepared to take the Ethics in Government Bill? If not, will be indicate where that Bill disappeared and what happened to the promise by a Minister eight weeks ago that it would be enacted within weeks? Is there a problem in regard to this Bill or is there a possible constitutional challenge envisaged in regard to it?
A Marcos type situation.
I am amazed at the various suggestions by Deputy Rabbittee and other Members of the House. For the past few days Deputies on the opposite side of the House have complained about the number of Bills being brought forward and they now want another Bill bought forward. The Deputies should make up their minds.