It is proposed to take business in the following order: Nos. 5, 7 (resumed), 8 (resumed), 9, 3, 4 and 6. Business will be interrupted at 3.30 p.m. to take No. 6 and the order will be resumed thereafter. Nos. 3 and 4 will be taken together. Private Members' Business, No. 19 (resumed) will be taken between 7 p.m. and 8.30 p.m.
Order of Business.
I should like to raise again the question discussed yesterday about the possibility of a substantive debate on the EMS. There would seem to be some ambiguity about this and we should like to have it clarified one way or the other. Is the Taoiseach in a position to assure us that the meetings in December will not take decisions in the matter? If he is not in a position to give us that assurance, I suggest he is bound by what he said in the Dáil on 11 October when he assured us there would be a debate in the Dáil beforehand unless those meetings were not to take decisions. Can he assure us now that decisions will not be taken there, and if not will we have a debate?
I cannot give any assurance as to what will happen on 4 and 5 December. I would wish, and I think this is what I will do if decisions have to be taken, to refer such decisions back to the Oireachtas and to the Government, if it is not possible, and it is unlikely to be possible, to have a debate in advance on the specific details.
Everybody knows that when the heads of Government meet they may not take decisions in the strict legal Community sense of the word, but what will be decided at that level will be unalterable thereafter, so much so, indeed, in the case of the regional fund, that the expenditure was regarded as obligatory because a decision had been taken at that level. Because such decisions are unalterable thereafter, the effect of what the Taoiseach proposes is that this House will not have an opportunity to consider this matter until decisions will have been taken, and the nominal business of having a debate afterwards would not mean anything. The Taoiseach gave us clear assurances in this matter. He told this House:
I propose to have a more substantive debate as soon as we know what the issues are and what problems accepting the EMS would pose for us. As of now, even if the Brussels Summit on 4 and 5 December come to conclusions about it—I do not know if that is likely, but if it is—I hope that the Dáil will have an opportunity of discussing it in advance.
When pressed subsequently by the Leader of the Labour Party the Taoiseach kept on saying that it was his intention to have such a debate, and when the Leader of the Labour Party questioned him further he then, in a somewhat petulant way, said that if the Deputy were less insistent he would get a lot more co-operation. That technique headed off further questions on that occasion. He had given the assurances that there would be a substantive debate in the House before possible decisions on 4 and 5 December.
I will not get myself involved in pedantics. The Deputy quoted me as saying that I hoped it would be possible. That still remains my position. I can assure the Deputy that I will not pull a fast one on him or anybody else as far as the EMS is concerned. The Deputy will appreciate from his experience in Europe that neither the German Chancellor nor the French President knows exactly what will happen on 4 December, and they are the two initiators of the scheme.
Yesterday when I asked him about a further debate and about allowing time for such a debate, the Taoiseach asked me for a reference of the earlier discussion. It was on 11 October and it is reported at column 93 of the Official Report. I will quote from that debate:
Mr. Cluskey: The Taoiseach mentioned the question of 3 December. Am I to take it that there is a possibility that we will enter into the European monetary system before the Dáil and the public have an opportunity of fully debating the whole question?
The Taoiseach: I would not think so. That would not be my intention.
Mr. Cluskey: It might not be the Taoiseach's intention but is there a possibility?
The Taoiseach: I would not think there is a possibility of that.
Any normal person would take that as a clear commitment by the Taoiseach that there would be a debate.
We cannot have a debate on it now.
I appreciate, as the Taoiseach mentioned yesterday, that there is a time factor involved. Apparently it is now desirable for the Taoiseach to visit a number of heads of State before 4 December, but when the Government are about to take a decision, or there is such a possibility, that will have very far-reaching effects on the livelihood of many other people and on the quality of life here, surely in a democracy it is possible to find time for the House and the public to enter into a public debate before any commitment at any level is given? I again ask the Taoiseach to consider having a sitting over a weekend if necessary.
I want to say again that I will not avoid any commitment which I have entered into, but from what Deputies FitzGerald and Cluskey have quoted it is obvious that there has not been any commitment, because I was not in a position to give it. The EMS, as far as Europe is concerned, is an entirely new concept, if one disregards the "Snake". It is certainly an entirely new concept as far as we are concerned. On 11 October I could not anticipate the course of events that would bring the EMS into effect. I cannot do so now, and that is why I cannot give a firm undertaking about a debate. I will assure the Deputies that I will not enter into commitments unless I am satisfied that we will have an opportunity here to endorse any such commitments.
Endorsed with Fianna Fáil votes.
Then what is the purpose of democracy? Does the Deputy want to run the show?
I suggest that part of democracy is that people will stick to what they say.
We are heading into a debate and I will not allow it to go any further. I am calling the first business.
On 11 October, in one of his replies to Deputy Cluskey in regard to our entering the EMS before the Dáil would have had an opportunity to debate the question fully, the Taoiseach said: "I would not think there is a possibility of that". Suspecting there might be some trap, because of the way in which the Taoiseach uses language, Deputy Cluskey asked: "There is no possibility?" Then, in a show of petulance, the Taoiseach said: "If the Deputy was less insistent he would get a lot more co-operation." We cannot do business like that in this House.
If I knew all the permutations and combinations of the EMS at this stage—I doubt if anybody does—I could give a firm answer. At the present time I cannot, and neither can anybody in Europe.
What has changed in the negotiations or in the situation between the time the Taoiseach gave a firm undertaking——
We will not continue with this strain of argument. We cannot have a debate at this time, as Deputies will appreciate.
If it is not possible——
We have had a long discussion on this now.
I have been answering for over ten minutes now.
But what has changed?
I have not changed.
But the Taoiseach gave a commitment——
We cannot have an argument now.
I should like to give notice of my intention to raise on the Adjournment conditions in St. Brendan's Hospital, Dublin.
I shall communicate with the Deputy.
I also wish to give notice that I should like to raise on the Adjournment the question of conditions at St. Brendan's hospital in view of the fact that my special notice question——
(Interruptions.)
Order. I shall communicate with the Deputy during the day.