John Bruton
Question:1 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the changes, if any, to An Action Programme for the Millennium arising from the recent review between the two parties in Government. [17446/99]
Ceisteanna–Questions. - An Action Programme for the Millennium.
Ruairí Quinn
Question:2 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the progress made with regard to the promised review or revision of An Action Programme for the Millennium; the form the review is taking; when it is expected to be completed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17749/99]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.
The review is going very well and we expect that it will be completed shortly.
Can the Taoiseach explain how the commitment in the Fianna Fáil manifesto to a referendum on Partnership for Peace was dropped when negotiation of An Action Programme for the Millennium came about?
The so-called commitment in the Fianna Fáil manifesto was based on an examination—
On a point of order, it was printed in a document so-called. I may have missed something.
The Taoiseach, without interruption. The Deputy may ask a supplementary when the Taoiseach has finished.
The so-called commitment was based on the fact that we would examine whether it affected our neutrality. At that stage, we were not in a position to look at all the legal assessments made by Deputy Spring's party leader when he insisted that we should join Partnership for Peace.
May I ask the Taoiseach why he has made such a gratuitous insult to all the Fianna Fáil supporters in the Law Library who could have told him when he was in Opposition that there was no problem with Partnership for Peace as far as neutrality was concerned? Did he not consult these famous think tanks?
If there was no problem why did it take the then Taoiseach and Tánaiste so long to agree to produce a White Paper?
If this is Question Time, I am quite happy to answer questions. I have no problem if the Taoiseach wishes to ask me questions. I will be pleased to answer him although I might have a few questions to put to him about what he has been up to for the last few days. However, I will forbear from doing so; I will not descend to that level. Is the Taoiseach seriously suggesting that in Opposition the Fianna Fáil Party thought that Partnership for Peace threatened legally our neutrality and that it was only when they came into Government and he met up with Deputy Harney he discovered this was not the legal position?
As I said during the debate in January, Fianna Fáil in Opposition was anxious to consider fully and completely the implications of Partnership for Peace. We did that and it was quite clear, based on the legal advice available, that there are no implications for neutrality. It was on that basis—
There never was.
That is not what many people indicated when the Deputy was in Government.
The Taoiseach is a slow learner.
First, I compliment the Taoiseach for so amply inheriting the mantle of the founder of the Fianna Fáil Party where words are what they mean, according to himself, and where looking into one's heart is a sufficient reference to truth and objectivity.
A Deputy
The peace formula—
An empty formula.
The Labour Party's consistency is not so good —
There has been consistency. We will come back to the so-called commitment. There is a report by an eminent reporter, Kevin Rafter, in The Irish Times dated 27 September.
The Deputy cannot quote at Question Time.
I am not quoting from the report. I am giving the reference in order not to confuse the Taoiseach. The report states that the review by FF/PDs may be complete by this week. The formal written answer which the Taoiseach read out prior to his ad libbing was to the effect that it would be completed shortly. We are now into October which is longer than the completion of that week. Is there a timetable for its completion?
Most of the work is completed. It is a matter of finding time to wrap it up.
I ask the Taoiseach for clarification of the opportunity which will be afforded to those of us in smaller parties and the Independents to participate properly in a full and proper debate on Partnership for Peace here next week. Will he give a commitment that there will be a proper and genuine opportunity presented to Members such as myself who wish to present the contrary position to that proposed by the Government in relation to PfP?
That is a matter for the Whips, not for me. I am sure the Deputy will have an opportunity to speak and that he will be in favour of Partnership for Peace.
I am sure the Sinn Féin Deputy is in favour of Partnership for Peace on this island, whatever about anywhere else. For the Taoiseach to suggest, as leader of the Government, that arrangements for the Order of Business on this floor are not a matter for him is quite frankly dishonest. The Chief Whip takes instructions from the Cabinet. The Taoiseach and I have shared Cabinet and the Taoiseach has been in many Cabinets and for him to try to suggest to a new Deputy—
Can we return to questions?
Will the Taoiseach agree that for the Taoiseach of the day to try to suggest to any Deputy, particularly a Deputy who has joined Leinster House after virtually 50 years of abstention, that the arrangements for business on the floor of this House are not a matter for the Taoiseach is simply not true? Has the Taoiseach given any instructions to the Chief Whip in relation to the meeting—
It is a matter of—
I think the Taoiseach can manage on his own. When he needs a dauphin, I am sure the Deputy will be beside his colleague. The Taoiseach and I have been Members of a Cabinet, which included his colleague beside him, and he knows well that matters of floor management in this House are a subject of discussion. If colleagues on the opposite side are going to try to suggest that it is anything else, I would be willing to go into chapter and verse.
I was never dictated to in Cabinet.
Will the Minister desist, please?
The Taoiseach is the Leader of the House.
I recall giving the Deputy instructions when he was a Whip. Will the Taoiseach respond to the substance of the question posed by the Sinn Féin Deputy? Is it the Government's intention to limit debate on the PfP motion and have a guillotine motion, or is it the intention of the Government to have an open-ended debate where every point of view, including differences in points of view, in all political parties can be expressed in this House?
I remind the House that I am replying to a question to ask the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the changes, if any, to An Action Programme for the Millennium arising from the recent review between the two parties in Government but obviously that does not make much difference. In terms of the reply, I do not know what the business is for next week. I understand that Partnership for Peace is included in it. I do not dictate either to the Government Whip or the other Whips for what hours the House will sit, or who will speak. It is not a dictatorship. They work it out very well and have been doing so for the 23 years during which I have been a Member of the House. I am not going to start that now.
There has been a change in the Taoiseach's policy.
Will the Taoiseach indicate his personal support for the opportunity for Deputies such as myself to have the right and the chance to participate in full debate on this issue in the coming week? Will he indicate his personal support and his commitment to urge such a facilitation?
As the Deputy knows, this side of the House does all it can to make sure that both the Deputy and other Independent Deputies and representatives of parties that have only one Member, are included in all debates. We try to include them whenever we can.
The Taoiseach is now on the record as having informed the House that he has no input into ordering the business of the House and that it is a matter for the Whips to organise themselves. Assuming that he is still a democrat, do I take it that, if there is a vote of the Whips present at a Whips meeting, the majority vote will prevail?
The Deputy is now becoming ridiculous.
No, I am not.
It is laughable at this stage.
I am trying to point out the hypocrisy of the Taoiseach's position.
Can we now move on to Question No. 3, please?
Can I have an answer to the question, Sir?
There are more important things to discuss.
If it is of any assistance, as far as the main Opposition party is concerned, we would be happy to have no limit at all on the debate on Partnership for Peace.
I asked the Taoiseach that question twice. He has deliberately refrained from answering it.
We know where we stand.
He is attempting to suggest that this matter is entirely—
Deputy—
Would you not agree, a Cheann Comhairle, that I am entitled to ask this question?
Ask the question, please.
I have asked it twice already and I am trying to get a reply, although I know that you are not responsible for the replies, a Cheann Comhairle. Since the Taoiseach has absolved himself of any responsibility for the determination of Government business as determined by the Whips, is he now saying that the Whips will be enabled, if they so decide collectively, to have an open-ended debate on this matter so as to ensure that every point of view can be expressed on the floor of the House? Is that a correct interpretation of what the Taoiseach is saying?
I have overall responsibility. The details worked out by the Whips are a matter for them.
Just answer the question.
No, I have been listening to the Deputy at length. I would be interested in the debate, however, to hear the Deputy's point of view; why he fought so hard in Government with his then party leader and Tánaiste to make sure that we joined Partnership for Peace.
The Taoiseach was not in that Government?
When the Deputy was in Opposition he decided that he wanted it.
The Deputy did a somersault.
Where is Deputy Roche?
Now he has gone the other way again. He has changed three times.
The Deputy is opportunistic. It is political opportunism.
I will be very interested to know what his view is in the debate.
Deputy De Rossa is obviously dictating that policy.