Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 13 Dec 1994

Vol. 447 No. 9

Announcement of Business.

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Mr. Dempsey)

The Whips met earlier this morning and agreed that No. 16, the Select Committee on Legislation and Security of Dáil Éireann (Privilege and Immunity) Bill, 1994, should be taken. Subsequent to that the Government had to meet to discuss amendments to that Bill. The Government has not completed its discussions on those amendments because they were received yesterday evening and Departments did not have an opportunity before this morning to make observations on them. In view of that the Government is proposing that instead of proceeding with No. 16 immediately two hours should be given to statements on the European Council meeting in Essen if that can be agreed by the House. The Government is well aware that it does not have a majority in the House and if the House decides otherwise, so be it. Nevertheless, the Government considers the extra time is necessary to finalise its consideration of the amendments to the Bill.

In the event of the House agreeing to take the statements, we propose that they be brought to a conclusion within two hours and the following arrangements shall apply: the opening statement by the Taoiseach and a main spokesperson of the Fine Gael Party, the Labour Party, the Progressive Democrats Party and the Democratic Left Party, who shall be called upon in that order, shall not exceed 20 minutes in each case and the statements by each other Member called upon shall not exceed ten minutes in each case. The proceedings on the Committee and Remaining Stages of No. 16, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 6 p.m. today by putting the necessary questions from the Chair forthwith and successively. On conclusion of No. 16, the Dáil shall adjourn forthwith until Thursday, 15 December 1994.

Mr. J. Bruton

I am somewhat puzzled as to the reason the Government has not been able to consider those amendments. I understand there was a Government meeting this morning and I would have expected that, given that this was the most urgent business, it would have been considered first. Therefore, I do not understand why a further two hours is necessary for consideration of the matter. I wish to make it clear that I do not believe it desirable for anybody to be rushed unduly when considering matters of importance. However, there is a danger that the House will look a little less than it ought if its Members are seen simply to be marking time by making statements for two hours.

Mr. Spring

While I can understand that some time is necessary, will the Chief Whip indicate if it is the Government's intention to table amendments to the Bill?

The Taoiseach

The Government met at 10.30 this morning and we have gone a long way in considering the amendments. The Government will table a small number of amendments. We are nearing completion but the tidying up operation and the preparation of the amendments for the Dáil has to take place. If the Dáil wishes to proceed on the basis of the present position, that is its prerogative. It is traditional to make statements in the House after a summit and this provides an opportunity to finalise business and deal with it more effectively in the House.

Miss Harney

While it is traditional to have statements on summits, we are not living in traditional times. I think an hour would be more than sufficient for statements on Essen; I do not believe we should devote two hours to it. I hope that by 1.15 p.m. we will begin the debate on the important Bill for which this House is meeting today. My party is prepared to allow the Government one hour for statements on the Essen Summit and then we should commence the debate on the Bill.

Proinsias De Rossa

I do not think it is advisable to start discussions or statements on Essen at this point. I heard about this possibility only five minutes ago — it was not raised at the Whips' meeting which my party attended. This is not a proper way to deal with an important European summit meeting. There should be an adjournment to allow the Government to complete its work on the Bill and present its amendments. There is no purpose in addressing a Bill when we do not have the Government amendments. There should be an adjournment of at least an hour or, if necessary, an hour-and-a-half. There is little point in coming in here and making pro forma statements on Essen which have no real relevance to what happened.

The Taoiseach

The Deputy will appreciate that when the amendments are completed they must be circulated and the various parties in the House given time to consider them. That is why we are talking in terms of two hours. I think that is reasonable.

Proinsias De Rossa

If you need two hours, so be it.

Mr. J. Bruton

It would be no harm if the Taoiseach were to make the statement he has prepared. I think that most Members, having received such short notice, will not be able to give the sort of response they would wish to give, but there is value in hearing what the Taoiseach has to say about the Essen Summit. I agree with Deputy Harney that the total time taken should be in the range of an hour. Perhaps when the Taoiseach concludes his statement we could adjourn for the rest of that hour, or hour-and-a-half.

The Taoiseach

Is Deputy Bruton suggesting that nobody in the House should respond, that I simply make my statement and then adjourn?

Mr. J. Bruton

That is what I am suggesting but I do not know whether other Members would agree. It is not possible for Members, given the notice we have had about this matter — literally a few minutes — to read the Presidency conclusions so as to respond in the manner in which one ought to respond to a substantial statement of this nature. I am simply making the proposal; I am not pressing it.

Mr. Deasy

The Essen Summit has massive implications for this country. I suggest, if there is disagreement about a full debate, that the incoming Government should have a major debate on the matter at the earliest possible opportunity.

An Ceann Comhairle

Does the House wish to proceed with statements on the Essen Summit, lasting two hours?

Mr. O'Malley

If the Taoiseach makes a speech on Essen, even though the circumstances are very difficult, other parties should comment on it as best they can. I do not want the business of the House unduly delayed and the time should be kept to a minimum, but it would be wrong to let it go without comment. The matter may not be very important——

The Taoiseach

It is.

Mr. O'Malley

——in the circumstances of the other day, but it is of long term importance to the European Union and to this country.

An Ceann Comhairle

May I ask if two hours is regarded as adequate by Members for that purpose? Agreed. Are the proceedings for dealing with No. 16 satisfactory?

Mr. O'Malley

I wish to clarify that on No. 16 there will be four hours debate from whatever time it starts.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

All Members will be anxious to ensure that the Bill is constitutional and workable. In light of the haste with which the Government is taking this matter, I wonder whether four hours will be adequate to be sure that the Bill is constitutional and workable. I mention this not as a Fine Gael person but as a parliamentarian who is anxious to ensure that the Bill is in proper shape at the end of the debate.

An Ceann Comhairle

Perhaps the Whips will have regard to that matter.

The Taoiseach

As I understand it, it was agreed between the Leaders of the parties that four hours was sufficient time. It may not be sufficient but that is the time agreed and we are not in charge of the House.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is the proposal that on the conclusion of proceedings on No. 16 the Dáil shall adjourn forthwith until Thursday, 15 December 1994 agreed? Agreed.