Business, as set out on the Order Paper, will be taken in the following order: Nos. 9, 2 and 10 (Vote 41) and No. 11.
Order of Business.
Might I inquire if the Taoiseach would consider setting aside a specific period for the consideration of No. 2 or, alternatively, if he would consider sitting tomorrow morning so that No. 2 may be disposed of before we reach the Taoiseach's Estimate? No. 9, the Industrial Development Bill, may take some time.
I understand that, in No. 9, there are only a few amendments left. It should take only a couple of hours at most, given goodwill all round. I would not be opposed to setting aside a number of hours this evening for No. 2 but I am afraid I cannot be here tomorrow morning because I made certain arrangements on the assumption that the House would not sit tomorrow morning.
About 18 sections in the Industrial Development Bill have been disposed of; there are 47 in it. Without fixing a timetable for the disposal of the Industrial Development Bill and No. 2, the motion for an inquiry, it may be that the time will be curtailed considerably. I suggest it would be undesirable that that situation should develop.
I suggest to the Taoiseach that No. 2 be taken first. I do not know the feeling of the House in regard to the Industrial Development Bill but it appears to me that the Taoiseach is being somewhat optimistic in believing that discussion on it will take only another two hours. If my estimation is right, it could take maybe double that length of time. In view of the importance of No. 2, the motion to establish an inquiry, it should be placed first. I also believe, in view of the importance of both measures—the Industrial Development Bill and the motion for the setting-up of the inquiry—that the Taoiseach should now move that the Dáil sit later than 10.30 p.m. tonight so that we can dispose of this business and, if necessary, meet all day tomorrow, from 10.30 a.m. to 10.30 p.m.
I cannot see what the need is to move to sit late this evening. We are discussing the terms of reference of a resolution to set up a judicial inquiry into a matter the merits of which I do not think will be open for discussion here. The hearing of the inquiry will take place before the judicial tribunal. I cannot see that discussion on the terms of reference will take a long time. I have made certain arrangements, which I would find it difficult to postpone, on the assumption that we would not sit tomorrow morning. As far as Deputy Corish's suggestion is concerned about taking No. 2 first, I would point out that I got the amendment from the Opposition parties only just before 1 p.m. I have not had time to read them adequately much less to study them.
The House will agree that it may not take very long to debate the terms of reference but, if the Industrial Development Bill continues for some hours this evening, then the amount of time left for the other motion might be very short.
Could we divide the time equally between the Industrial Development Bill and the motion?
I think that is the most satisfactory——
Would the Taoiseach agree that there should be no element of constraint in the time allowed for discussion of the motion and that this matter could perhaps be cleared off more rapidly if it were taken first?
I want to get the resolution through the House today so that it can go to the Seanad tomorrow. I want to do that so as to establish the tribunal which, when established, can decide the sitting days and avail of the month of January, which is not a court-sitting month or, if it is, only to a limited extent so that as much work can be got through by the inquiry as possible.
What about taking the motion at 7 p.m., and finishing by 10.30 p.m.?
If the Taoiseach is so anxious to get this inquiry soon, would it not be natural to dispose of it first today?
Deputy Cosgrave has just made a suggestion that we finish the Industrial Development Bill by 7 o'clock and then start on the resolution. I agree with the suggestion.
That means 3½ hours for the motion.
It seems reasonable. We are not holding the inquiry in this House.
We are anxious to ensure that the inquiry will investigate the right things. Our amendments deal with what should be covered in the inquiry. There should not be any element of constraint in the debate. I suggest that there will be such an element of constraint if time to discuss the most important terms setting up the inquiry is limited. Surely there should be an open debate?
By starting at 7 p.m., we have divided the time of the House. Deputy Cosgrave made the suggestion.
It is preposterous to suggest that two or three people from each political party should discuss the setting up of a judicial inquiry in three and a half hours. I think the House should go on until midnight or, indeed, until one o'clock in the morning, if necessary.
If this is an amended Order of Business, we want not alone to protest but to vote against it.
I am putting forward the Order of Business as it was notified to the Whips on the other side.
Is the Taoiseach accepting Deputy Cosgrave's amendment to the effect that we discontinue the discussion at 7 o'clock?
I am prepared to accept it if the Labour Party do.
We are objecting to the Order of Business.
There can be no division on the Taoiseach's proposals on the Order of Business.
As far as we can gather there is agreement between the Taoiseach and Deputy Cosgrave that the discussion on the Industrial Development Bill be discontinued at seven o'clock; then we go on to the consideration of the motion until 10.30 p.m. and some time before 10.30 p.m. the Taoiseach concludes. Is this the new Order of Business?
It is proposed to discuss the Industrial Development Bill, 1969, and conclude it at 7 p.m.
Not to conclude it, but to stop at that point.
Money is badly needed for the IDA.
When we are on the Committee Stage of a Bill we cannot decide to terminate it while many sections may not have been discussed at all. We will conclude the debate at that point and take it up again at the next available opportunity, and we will co-operate in arranging time for that.
What is the Taoiseach's specific objection to taking No. 2 first?
I do not want the merits of this to be debated in the House. We are establishing a judicial inquiry to go into the merits and it is only right that they should not be discussed here. We may debate only the terms of reference, and the time envisaged, 3½ hours, seems to me anyway to be sufficient time within which to debate them.
Would the Taoiseach agree the terms of reference could be crucial to the kind of inquiry that would take place on the whole question? Therefore if the Taoiseach wants a successful conclusion to this inquiry to establish the truth, surely the terms of reference should be properly debated in this House?
I think they can be in the time I suggest.
The Taoiseach clearly believes that, confining ourselves to the terms of reference and not discussing the merits of the matter under the inquiry, the debate is unlikely to last more than 3½ hours. He may well be right. May I suggest that we accept his proposal with this proviso, that if the debate, which you will no doubt properly confine to the terms of reference, does in fact run beyond 10.30 p.m., the House, in those circumstances, would sit late?
I do not mind. I do not know what is the appropriate time to move that we sit late.
Before 8 o'clock.
I should like to see the other Bill finished, because the money for industrial grants is running out and we want to ensure that we have sufficient funds, and I would ask the Minister for Industry and Commerce for his observations on that.
As I told the House when introducing the Second Stage, it is estimated that the money available for industrial grants will run out in the middle of January unless we pass this Bill.
The Taoiseach cannot blackmail us either by implying that we will be holding up this measure. I suggest it could have been brought in far earlier if it were not for the messing around we had with the Estimates.
May I take it from what the Taoiseach has said that the Industrial Development Bill will be taken and when it is concluded the motion will be taken and will proceed until it is concluded? Is that what the Taoiseach said?
We shall move to sit not later than 12 midnight.
That is the first time we heard that time mentioned. Why not leave it that we continue until the business is concluded because when it comes to around 12 or one o'clock people are anxious to get home.
I will have to be in the House all day tomorrow and all day on Thursday.
So will most of us.
I do not want to be here all night and tomorrow morning as well.
While we wish to co-operate with the Minister for Industry and Commerce in getting this Bill through, to discuss 18 sections of that Bill, not at undue length, has taken a fair amount of time. I suggest that if we have not concluded the Committee Stage by the time specified other arrangements be made to take it some time within the next three days. I do not think we should be precluded from discussing any of the sections of this Bill when we are prepared to discuss it at a time mutually agreed.
If the IDA Bill does not finish by 7 o'clock, it could be taken in the morning if the Minister is available.
We may get through it.
Deputy FitzGerald wants to delay the Bill. Apparently he has spent a lot more time than would be normal; that is not unexpected. However, the Deputy will have to remember that other exigencies come into play and we want the money by mid-January.
I should like to remind the House that the Government owe £24 million that they cannot pay until this Bill is passed.
Why not discuss it in the morning?
They do not want it passed.
I suggest we go on until 6.30 p.m., and see what the position is then.
I wish to give notice of my intention to raise on the Adjournment the subject matter of Question No. 72 on the Order Paper of Wednesday, 10th December, 1969.
The Chair will communicate with the Deputy.