It is proposed to take Nos. 1, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11. It is also proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders that; (1) business shall be interrupted at 4.45 p.m. today; (2) the Dáil shall meet tomorrow at 10.30 a.m. and shall adjourn not later than 4 p.m.; (3) Nos. 1, 6, 7 and 8 shall be decided without debate and any division demanded on No. 8 shall be taken forthwith; (4) the proceedings on the Committee and Remaining Stages of No. 10 if not previously concluded shall be brought to a conclusion at 12.30 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 Foreign Affairs and (5) the proceedings on the resumed Second Stage of No. 11, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 4.45 p.m. today.
Order of Business.
Is the proposal that business be interrupted at 4.45 p.m. today satisfactory? Agreed. Is the proposal that the Dáil shall meet tomorrow at 10.30 a.m. and adjourn at 4 p.m. agreed? Agreed. Are the proposals for dealing with Nos. 1, 6, 7 and 8 satisfactory? Agreed. Are the proposals for dealing with No. 10 satisfactory? Agreed. Are the proposals for dealing with No. 11 satisfactory? Agreed.
In view of the fact that the Government was in a great hurry to publish the Glackin report on the same evening as it lost two of its Deputies, is the reason for such so that the Dáil will have an opportunity to discuss that report before the summer recess? If so, when will discussion take place on the report in view of its implications for legislation for which this House is responsible?
That is not a matter for the Order of Business.
If the Taoiseach is unable to provide time here to discuss that report will he agree to amend the terms of reference of the Select Committee on Enterprise and Economic Strategy to ensure that that committee can deal with the report with a fine tooth comb during the summer recess and that Members on all sides of the House will be made aware of the implications of the report?
The report has been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions and I do not think the Deputy's request can be responded to at this stage.
As Whip of the largest growing group in the House, may I ask the Taoiseach, notwithstanding what he said, whether he agrees that this report, which shows up the parasitic face of Irish business, should be debated here before the summer recess, specifically in view of the fact that a State company paid more than £9 million for a site that was worth only a fraction of that amount?
Doubtless Members will find suitable ways and means of adverting to the matter.
It is the last opportunity——
That matter does not arise on the Order of Business and I have already ruled so.
Am I to take it from what the Taoiseach said that because this report has been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions and to about five other authorities, as is normal, it cannot be discussed here?
The Chair has ruled it is not in order to discuss that matter now.
Why was there a rush in publishing it then?
Deputies will have to find another way of dealing with this matter.
The Government is trying to keep Aer Lingus off the front pages.
It seems extraordinary that because the Director of Public Prosecutions is considering a matter Members of this House cannot discuss it. There are no proceedings issued——
I have ruled on the matter.
It seems extraordinary that this House is not allowed to debate a report which is now public property.
I repeat, I have ruled on the matter.
On a separate matter regarding the interview of the Tánaiste on Northern Ireland, is it intended that the Taoiseach or the Tánaiste will explain to the House today or tomorrow the apparent change in Government policy, given that the Taoiseach recently made it clear that the Government is still pursuing an expanded approach to talks on Northern Ireland?
I want to assist the Deputy in dealing with matters appropriate to the Order of Business, but this is not a matter for this time.
I appreciate your difficulty, a Cheann Comhairle, but we also have a difficulty in having matters of relevance debated in this House.
Procedures are laid down for raising such matters and getting answers to questions.
Will the Taoiseach take an opportunity today or tomorrow?
We are, I gather, to have an Adjournment debate tomorrow.
Can we have a statement to that effect from the Taoiseach, that the Tánaiste will come in here and explain Government policy on Northern Ireland?
The Deputy must raise this in another way.
On a point of order, will the Chair investigate the possible risk of the Government preventing debate on reports in this House by referring them to the Director of Public Prosecutions, even though the reports do not suggest fraud, as a mechanism simply to prevent debate in this House? Could the Chair as the responsible person for Members' privileges investigate that potential for abuse by reference to the Director of Public Prosecutions?
Deputies
Hear, hear.
I do not think that is a matter for the Chair.
I will not pursue that matter further. I have no doubt the Chair will consider the matter. I am concerned about the Taoiseach's dignity——
Are you? Thank you, John.
I am worried about him, and I just want to know what action he is going to take about the EC official who said there was only so much one could do to get Deputy Reynolds out of the hole which he has dug for himself?
What are we to do to uphold the dignity of the Taoiseach's office?
I thank the Deputy for bringing this to the attention of the House. This is an important matter, despite his concern——
——about the expensive holes which are being dug. It is totally unacceptable to every Member of this House that any EC official should choose a strategy to try to undermine the validity of the Irish case——
Deputies
Hear, hear.
——in relation to the amount of money to which this country is entitled under the Conclusions of Edinburgh. I will not be browbeaten by such suggestions.
A Deputy
You have undermined yourself.
I will continue to fight the case and I hope I will have the support of everybody in this House in rejecting totally that that is an acceptable practice for any official.
Why did the Taoiseach not get the same commitment that Gonzales got?
Why did the Taoiseach not get it in writing?