It is proposed to take Nos. 11, 4, 1 and 12. It is also proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that; (1) No. 4 shall be brought to a conclusion within one hour and the following arrangements shall apply; (i) the speech of a Minister or Minister of State and of the main spokesperson for the Fine Gael Party, the Progressive Democrats Party and the Technical Group shall not exceed ten minutes in each case; (ii) the speech of each other Member called upon shall not exceed five minutes in each case; and (iii) a Minister or Minister of State shall be called upon not less than five minutes before the debate is due to conclude to make a speech in reply. (2) Private Members' Business shall be No. 18 and the proceedings thereon shall be brought to a conclusion at 8.30 p.m.
Order of Business.
Are the proposals for dealing with No. 4 satisfactory and agreed?
I move an amendment to item No. 4, namely after subsection (iii) to insert the following:
Where a Member in possession accepts, in accordance with precedent and with the consent of the Chair, an orderly intervention by another Member querying or commenting on his-her speech, the time taken by such intervention and the reply thereto, shall be added to the time allocated for the debate and for the Member in possession.
Are there any comments on the amendment?
Deputies
Agreed.
It is not agreed.
A Member from the Government side. Deputy Davern, tried to do likewise recently and we had to shut him up.
Will the Taoiseach bear in mind that, so far as possible, we should conduct the business of the House in a similar manner as normal people conduct a discussion, namely, to allow reasonable interruption and dialogue, not monologues.
If the Deputy would like changes to the procedures of the House he should refer them to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
We are bringing them up in the proper way, where a decision can be taken in the House.
The Deputy is not and he knows that.
This is the place where such matters should be dealt with.
Tá
- Barrett, Seán.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, John.
- Carey, Donal.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Connor, John.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Currie, Austin.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Foxe, Tom.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Harney, Mary.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Keogh, Helen.
- McDowell, Michael.
- McGrath, Paul.
- McManus, Liz.
- O'Donnell, Liz.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- Owen, Nora.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Ring, Michael.
- Sheehan, P. J.
- Yates, Ivan.
Níl
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Andrews, David.
- Bell, Michael.
- Bhreathnach, Niamh.
- Bree, Declan.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Broughan, Tommy.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Burton, Joan.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Costello, Joe.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kenny, Seán.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, James.
- McDowell, Derek.
- Moffatt, Tom.
- Morley, P. J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
- Mulvihill, John.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Brian.
- Fitzgerald, Eithne.
- Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Flood, Chris.
- Foley, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Hughes, Séamus.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Power, Seán.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Ryan, John.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Smith, Michael.
- Spring, Dick.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Joe.
Is the proposal for dealing with Private Members' Business this evening, that the proceedings, will be brought to a conclusion at 8.30 p.m., satisfactory? Agreed.
The Government has become characterised by unattributable briefings and background announcements subsequently clarified by others who believe that such announcements should have been made in a different way. Will the Taoiseach clarify whether a breach of privilege was involved in the disclosure of the contents of the Courts Bill to people outside the House first? Are the reports in today's newspapers of the contents of that Bill accurate and, if so, when will the Members of the House responsible for introducing it receive a copy?
In respect of an alleged breach of privilege the Committee on Procedure and Privileges is the appropriate place to have that matter raised. In respect of Deputy Bruton's query I can inform the House that, under the rulings of the Chair, publication in newspapers of the apparent content of proposed legislation which had not been made known to the House has been ruled not to be a prima facie breach of privilege and I can quote the references for that if the House desires.
For clarification purposes, the House was told the Bill would be in the hands of all Members this week. Publication of details of the Courts Bill in the newspapers is not and was never deemed to be a breach of privilege. The Department of Justice and the Minister for Justice always make known their plans and proposals to security correspondents in the first instance. The set of far-reaching reforms in the proposed Bill has been welcomed by both parties in Government, has received widespread acceptance and a good deal of work has been done in the past ten days on those proposals. I am surprised Deputy Bruton has taken exception; it is not clear to me what he has taken exception to.
I will clarify that for the Taoiseach.
That should not give rise to argument or debate now.
Last week the Minister for Foreign Affairs made announcements about justice legislation and now the Minister for Justice has made announcements on it. In that respect the Taoiseach described her as doing it her way. Is that the Government's way, Dick Spring's way, her way, or has the Government lost its way?
Is it the Tinakilly way?
Deputy Bruton should read the announcement again.
Fine Gael do not have a way.
We would not have Deputy Cowen on this side. We are definite about that. The Deputy will have to join Labour.
Perhaps the Minister for Justice was reminded of the title of the Cranberries' album, namely, "Everybody else is doing it, why can't I?" This proposed legislation is item No. 11 on the schedule of legislation circulated by the Government Whip yesterday. I ask the Taoiseach to congratulate the Attorney General on the speed with which he has produced this legislation, for which he deserves the congratulations of all Members.
On item No. 6 on the schedule dealing with information on termination of pregnancy, will the Taoiseach indicate if the Minister for Health will follow the example of the Minister for Justice and publish details of that proposed legislation so that Deputies will have an opportunity to read the broad scope of the legislation in advance of receiving the Bill? Will he brief the health correspondents and follow the good example set up by the Minister for Justice in the way she briefed security correspondents?
That legislation will be introduced this session.
In relation to the question of information on abortion, which the Taoiseach confused last week with the Freedom of Information Bill, will he indicate how quickly we can expect publication of that Bill and will the security correspondent or the health correspondent be responsible for it?
That matter has been raised many times on the Order of Business.
The Taoiseach was suffering from jet lag last week.
Is Deputy De Rossa referring to item No. 6 on the list published or what Bill is he referring to?
Perhaps the Taoiseach needs to be reminded that the country had a referendum almost two years ago when it was decided information on abortion should be made available to our people. Will he indicate when that Bill will be published? Will it be published as quickly as the Courts Bill, which was welcomed? The Taoiseach should not confuse that Bill with the Freedom of Information Bill which he continually does.
I answered the same question for Deputy Harney. Obviously, Deputy De Rossa has not been listening to the replies given.
I am trying to get the Taoiseach to give clear information to the House.
You want it next session, is that it?
A serious situation has arisen as a result of a Circuit Court judgment last week where hearsay evidence from professionals cannot now be heard in court. It means that many cases relating to the protection and welfare of children cannot now come before the courts. Is the Government considering this and will amending legislation be introduced so that these cases can be heard?
Is legislation promised in this area? It must be promised in the House. I take it that it is not.
It needs to be promised. It is the only thing that is not.
On the Order of Business yesterday I asked the Taoiseach when the Government intended publishing the Bill on occupiers' liability. The Minister was vague and non committal in his response. However, today I read in The Irish Press that this Bill will be approved by Cabinet next Wednesday. Will the Minister confirm if this is true and say when this Bill will be before the House?
It will be brought before the House as soon as possible.
I want to ask the Taoiseach if, after the Tinakilly two-step, there is anything left intact of the proposal in the Programme for Government to establish a third banking force.
A two-step third force? Forget about it.
This is a very serious point and if it does not divide the parties in Government, it ought to. The third force in banking is specifically provided for in the Programme for Government.
The Deputy should ask a precise question relative to the Order of Business.
Is it going to be implemented?
To what legislation is the Deputy referring?
I have nothing to add to what I said yesterday on this matter.
The Taoiseach said nothing yesterday.
Let me revisit the promised legislation to allow Irish women receive information on abortion. Pending the publication of this legislation, which is long promised, will the Taoiseach instruct the Attorney General in relation to cases currently before the courts to behave——
Is the Deputy raising a matter pertaining to promised legislation?
Will the actions of the Attorney General reflect the will of the Government? He has been ambivalent in the past, and before this Attorney General is appointed as President of the High Court and pending this legislation, the Attorney General should reflect the will of the Government.
The Deputy should not reflect on a constitutional officer such as this.
Will the Taoiseach at least give me a respectful answer to that question?
It is out of order.
What is the question, Deputy?
Will the Government instruct the Attorney General, who is the principal law officer of this State, to reflect the will of the Government in his deliberations?
The Deputy must find another way of raising that matter. It is not in order now.
It is promised legislation and I am in order.
Is the Taoiseach aware of the serious problem relating to matching funds for IFI-sponsored projects in the Border region, particularly cross-Border ventures?
The Deputy said he was raising a matter in relation to promised legislation.
I am coming to the point. As the Taoiseach does not seem to be au fait with what is happening around the country, I wanted to bring it to his attention. When is it intended to introduce legislation to provide for matching funding as promised?
Let us see if this legislation is promised. I accept the view of the Taoiseach in these matters.
No legislation is promised.
That is outrageous. It is typical of the Government's attitude to the Border region that it is not aware of what is happening or of the major problems or anything else in that area. They pay lip service. Yesterday a major announcement of substantially increased funding through the IFI was announced and the Taoiseach is making no effort to provide for matching funds.
Deputy Boylan must now desist and resume his seat. He is being quite disorderly and he knows it. I am calling Deputy Sheehan.
I am drawing attention to something very serious.
Will the Taoiseach say if and when a Supplementary Estimate will be introduced for the relevant Departments to provide for the necessary matching funds to go with the increased provisions under the International Fund for Ireland where a number of local authorities are unable to complete projects now because they lack the money?
Does this relate to promised legislation?
Would the Taoiseach not agree that the Government has promised and, indeed, sought an increase in the International Fund for Ireland and that therefore a Supplementary Estimate is necessary?
That should be raised in the appropriate way at the appropriate time.
Does the Taoiseach want this State to be made look foolish when there are projects north of the Border being properly funded and projects this side unable to go ahead because the local authorities do not have the money?
That is not relevant to the Order of Business.
That would make the Taoiseach look ridiculous, having gone around, even gone as far as Australia to beg the Australians to give us money, and then to be unable to go ahead with projects because there are no matching funds.
I am sure the Deputy will find a way of raising that matter. I called Deputy Sheehan earlier.
The Taoiseach got £200,000 in New Zealand.
Put down a question if you are interested.
For the benefit of those people who pretend to know what is going on in the Border region, more is happening and more funds are available in that region than even in the history of this State.
I take it Deputy Sheehan is not offering.
I am. That will be the day when I am not offering.
He should respond to the Chair when he is called.
As the Taoiseach is not the sailor that his predecessor was——
He has got a Spring liferaft.
When will this country ratify the International Law of the Sea?
That is a good question and it should be put down accordingly.
This is a very important question.
It is so important that it should be dealt with in the appropriate manner.
One of our Irish fishing trawlers was arrested in the Azores recently and brought to court and charged——
Deputy Sheehan, resume your seat, please.
I reckon the Taoiseach is not with it.
On promised legislation, will the Taoiseach indicate when the amending legislation on the adoption laws is likely to be brought before the House? At present the adoption societies have great difficulty in placing children.
This matter is receiving serious consideration.
I would like further clarification on that. The Taoiseach says it will get serious consideration. What is serious consideration? When will something happen?
It is getting very serious consideration.
Then what is very serious consideration?
It is most unlikely that it will be introduced this session.
I observe Deputy O'Donnell offering again.
On the Courts and Court Officers Bill, are there any plans to appoint more High Court and Circuit Court judges? There is nothing in the press release about that but that means nothing.
The Deputy should await the circulation of the Bill referred to and the debate which will ensue.
The appointment of more judges is the most important aspect of the reforms.
The answer to the question is yes.