It is proposed to take Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 13. It is also proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders that; 1. In the event of the motion for either or both of the by-elections for Mayo West and Dublin South-Central being moved, the following arrangements shall apply; (i) both motions shall be debated together; (ii) speeches which shall be confined to a spokesperson for the Technical Group, Fine Gael, the Progressive Democrats and the Government, shall not exceed 30 minutes in each case; (iii) Members may share time; and (iv) the questions necessary to bring the debate to a conclusion shall be put successively at the end of the debate; 2. Nos. 6, 7 and 8 shall be decided without debate; and 3. business shall be interrupted not later than 4.45 p.m.
Order of Business.
Are the proposals for dealing with the by-election writs agreed? Agreed. Are the proposals for dealing with Nos. 6, 7 and 8 agreed?
No, Sir. The Fine Gael Party believes it does not make sense to proceed with business of a routine nature when it is plain that the Government's national plan is falling apart in the most humiliating circumstances and when Ministers, like spoiled children, are blaming county managers, EC officials, everybody except themselves.
It is sufficient to indicate opposition. Speechmaking is not in order.
It is necessary.
We are opposing the order.
Tá
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Bhreathnach, Niamh.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Costello, Joe.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Ellis, John.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Brian.
- Fitzgerald, Eithne.
- Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Flood, Chris.
- Foley, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hilliard, Colm M.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Hughes, Séamus.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kenny, Seán.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDowell, Derek.
- Moffatt, Tom.
- Morley, P. J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
- Mulvihill, John.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Penrose, William.
- Power, Seán.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Ryan, John.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Spring, Dick.
- Upton, Pat.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Walsh, Eamon.
- Walsh, Joe.
Níl
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Carey, Donal.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Creed, Michael.
- Currie, Austin.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Dukes, Alan M.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Harney, Mary.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Keogh, Helen.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Paul.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael.
- (Limerick East).
- O'Donnell, Liz.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- Owen, Nora.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Yates, Ivan.
In respect of item No. 3, is it agreed that business be interrupted at 4.45 p.m.? Agreed.
Would the Taoiseach agree to bring forward on an emergency basis the debate on the Estimates for the Department of Foreign Affairs so that the House may discuss the debacle concerning the Government's national plan and the potential loss of funding for Tallaght hospital, Dublin light rail and training for the unemployed?
That matter is not in order now.
Would the Taoiseach agree that the House, which spent three long days discussing a plan that is apparently invalid, should be allowed to debate the Estimates for the Department of Foreign Affairs so that we can discuss the mess in which the Government now finds itself?
I do not wish to interrupt Members at this time but I have no option but to do so when the matter raised is strictly not in compliance with the Order of Business.
Sir, the Estimates for the Department of Foreign Affairs are promised business and I am asking that the debate on them be brought forward in order that we can discuss what is happening in regard to the national plan. We will not then have to rely on Ministers blaming civil servants as our main source of information.
The cheek of it.
It is called democracy.
It is not the Estimates for the Department of Foreign Affairs that Deputy Bruton should be asking to have brought forward, rather those of the Minister for Finance who has full responsibility for the plan. Discussion of Estimates in this House is a matter for the Whips and I would not like to disappoint Deputy Bruton or others if they are harbouring any thoughts that there will be a new plan. The plan is there and it will be negotiated on.
A 15 per cent cut.
The Taoiseach's own officials in the Department of Finance.
Another £400 million has been lost in the accounts.
It would be in the national interest, given all the reports emanating from Brussels, if the Government would make a firm statement in this House in relation to the national plan. What has been reported in all our newspapers is disturbing and if it is the case that the Government intend to submit a revised plan from 3 March, it is in this House that that matter should be discussed.
I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy but the matter to which she refers is not in order now.
Will the Taoiseach avail of the precedent which the Minister for Health, Deputy Howlin, availed of earlier this week to have statements made in this House today.
The matters referred to by the Deputy can be raised in this House in the ordinary way, primarily by way of substantive motion in Private Members' Time.
I am asking the Taoiseach if the Minister for Finance would make a statement to this House this afternoon in relation to the national plan.
That is not in order now, Deputy. This is not Question Time.
Would the Taoiseach agree to a statement being made?
I am sure the Deputy understands the ruling of the Chair on this matter.
Once again the Government is behaving in an appalling manner on this issue. It is afraid to discuss it; it knows it is wrong.
On promised legislation, may I ask the Taoiseach in respect of the solicitors Bill and following the revolt by the solicitors in Fianna Fáil, when an announcement will be made concerning which sections of the published Bill will be jettisoned? Does this have the agreement of the members of the Labour Party who are not solicitors?
Deputy Rabbitte is looking after the bankers.
What kind of an assault is being made on Bernie Malone? The Labour Party want to take her out of Europe and now it wants to take away——
That is quite adequate, Deputy Rabbitte.
This Bill will be before the House in a matter of weeks and Deputy Rabbitte will have ample opportunity then to make his contribution. I will be very surprised if Deputy Rabbitte takes up the cudgels on behalf of the financial institutions in this country. I will be amazed if that is the stance he takes.
I am only looking for information.
I am sure you are very busy, a Cheann Comhairle, but have you seen this morning's Irish Independent? I want to raise the matter——
Deputy Barrett, the Chair deprecates displays of that kind. It is not in order and my predecessors have set——
It refers to £200 million.
Is it the Irish Independent in particular or any newspaper?
Deputy Barrett, please desist from these matters.
The Minister for the Environment is absent from the House. He must be out and about staring at county managers. Last week he was blaming county councillors, this week he is blaming county managers for losing £200 million. Would the Taoiseach ask his Ministers to stop blaming public servants for their incompetence in relation to this matter?
I am calling Deputy Doyle and I hope she wishes to raise a matter that is relevant to the Order of Business.
I may need your guidance on this matter, a Cheann Comhairle. Without any reference to the specifics of the case — the Taoiseach should not laugh until he at least hears what I have to say; this is not a laughing matter.
When the Deputy asks for guidance she is usually out of order.
I would ask the Taoiseach to at least listen to me. I do not wish to get into the specifics of this case but in view of the increasing public concern — and indeed concern expressed to me in this House this morning — about this issue, would the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry intervene immediately in the proposed slaughter today of 60 in-calf heifers in Donegal?
I should like very much to assist the Deputy——
There is enormous concern for the welfare of the animals in this case and it is not the specifics, it is the principle of slaughtering in-calf breeding stock.
I will seek to be helpful to the Deputy by saying that I will put the matter in order during the day perhaps, but not now.
Time is not on my side; the animals are to be slaughtered this morning. A Private Notice Question or a question on the Adjournment will be too late, that is my problem. There is a time urgency on this issue. I urge you, a Cheann Comhairle, to allow the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry to deal with this matter.
It cannot be more urgent than today. I am calling Deputy Gay Mitchell. I am sorry, there are too many Deputies offering. I cannot hear them at this time.
Will the Taoiseach confirm it is not his intention to withdraw the Solicitors (Amendment) Bill but that it will go before the Select Committee on Legislation and Security and that its objective will be to ensure that the concerns of those who use the legal system will be taken into account, not the legal profession itself?
This Bill will be introduced in the House in two week's time. Its whole thrust is to ensure that those who use the legal system are given priority and protection, not the financial institutions or anybody else.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): Has the Government changed its plans for setting up Teilifís na Gaeilge in view of the letter sent by the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications to RTE instructing it to hold everything.
Let us be relevant at this time.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): Obviously, it is another change of plan.
Will the Taoiseach confirm that proposals in relation to light rail for Dublin will continue to form part of the National Development Plan and proceed as anticipated in the plan?
That is a good question, Deputy; it should be tabled in the ordinary way.
They either do not know the answer or it is gone.
If Deputies insist on being heard, it is simply making a mockery of the Order of Business because quite a high percentage of the matters raised are clearly not in order.
We are trying to help unfortunate people who are being screwed and misled by this Government.
Will the Taoiseach say who issued the instructions yesterday to deny access to this House to certain members of the public, accompanied by their TDs? Why was that order given? Was it because they were farmers?
Deputy, I must take responsibility for the question you posed. It is a matter for the House. The matter to which you adverted seems to be one primarily for the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. The Chair is concerned about the allegations you made and I give an assurance that I will have the matter fully investigated and communicate with the Deputy.
A Cheann Comhairle, could a public apology be offered to the people concerned who were highly insulted by the manner in which they were treated at the gate of this House yesterday? They are law abiding citizens and farmers who are entitled to visit this House.
Deputy Boylan, I share your anxiety in this matter.
I hope it will not recur.
It has long been the practice in this House, particularly on your part, a Cheann Comhairle, to protect the good name of people — not Members of this House — who are not here to defend themselves. Does the Taoiseach intend to come into this House and protect the good name of the Government negotiating team, led by the Department of Finance, who now accept that there is not sufficient European Union funding available to support the entire range of spending proposals because the Taoiseach's answers here today imply that this Government team, negotiating on our behalf, are not telling the truth?
That matter can be raised in this House in an appropriate manner, especially by utilisation of Private Members' Business.
The Taoiseach should either tell the truth in this matter or defend the Government negotiating team.
It is the most important problem facing the country.
It is indeed, Deputy, and should be dealt with in a proper manner.
The Taoiseach, in response to Deputy John Bruton in relation to the Foreign Affairs Estimate, suggested that the Finance Estimate would be the appropriate one on which to debate the débacle over the National Development Plan. Will the Taoiseach confirm that he is prepared to bring forward the Finance Estimate to discuss this matter in view of reports that some £1,200 million will be knocked off the National Development Plan?
That is a matter for the Whips.
It is a matter for the Whips to decide, Deputy.
I refer the Taoiseach to his earlier comments on the Solicitors (Amendment) Bill. In the light of promised legislation, indeed published and circulated legislation, will he accept that we have now a new category of legislation, published and circulated, but not to be taken seriously?
Let us now come to deal with the writs for the by-elections.
Will the Taoiseach say when the proposed legislation on local government reform will be introduced in the House?
Very shortly. It is well advanced.