It is proposed to take business in the following order: Nos. 10 (resumed), 4, 11, 5 and 12. No. 10 (resumed) will be taken between 4 p.m. and 6 p.m. Private Members' Business will be taken at 6.00 to 7.30 p.m., No. 23 (resumed).
Order of Business.
On the Order of Business, may I ask the Taoiseach, in relation to the motion submitted by my party in the name of Deputy Tom Fitzpatrick, of which the Taoiseach has been notified, deploring the increase in postal and telecommunications charges as a result of a decision yesterday by the Government and asking that that decision be rescinded pending an examination by and recommendation from the National Prices Commission, whether that motion will be debated and, if so, if he will give Government time for that debate?
It is not the intention to give Government time for it but, if Deputy Fitzpatrick wishes to bring it forward in Private Members' time, it can get normal priority.
Does the Taoiseach not agree that this is a very, very serious matter—the imposition of some £25 million in a single year, in effect another budget and a matter, therefore, of great national importance and one to which Government time should be given having regard to its wide public importance and the great danger it is likely to do to the economy in increasing the rate of inflation with consequential unemployment?
I think it can be adequately discussed in the normal way during Private Members' time.
I disagree entirely. This is a reasonable request on the part of the Opposition. Just about this time last year we had another action of this nature by the Government introducing another measure which proposed putting on £30 million new taxation by way of an Imposition of Duties Order. This sleight of hand, as I described it last year, should not be permitted to continue and this matter should be debated openly here in Government time.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
There will be ample opportunity, if the Deputy wants to discuss it, between now and the Adjournment.
We want to discuss it immediately.
Notice has to be given.
Why is it that the Criminal Law Jurisdiction Bill is being given only two hours debate this week? Is it for the purpose of allowing the Government ultimately to say that this matter was debated over a period of a number of weeks in succession when, in actual fact, the Bill was debated intermittently, a few hours this week, a few hours last week and, perhaps, a couple of hours next week? If there is urgency about it, why not proceed with it?
We have to do other business as well.
If it had not been delayed so long in the Seanad it would be out of this House now.
(Interruptions.)
We can do our business in this House and if there was all that urgency in it at the time of the Law Commission why is it not being proceeded with now? We are prepared to facilitate the Government.
That is a change in attitude.
It is not a change in attitude.
The Opposition obstructed it.
How many weeks was it languishing on the Order Paper?
How long did the Opposition obstruct other business? We could not get the Bill here because the Opposition were talking about the wealth tax and so forth.