It is proposed to take business in the following order: Nos. 3, 7 (resumed), 9, 8, 10 (resumed), 4 and 5. Nos. 4 and 5 will be taken together. Private Members' Business, No. 19 (resumed), will be from 7 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. I should like to add, for the information of the House, that I propose to make a statement tomorrow in the House on my recent visit to Paris, London and Bonn.
Order of Business.
I should like to ask the Taoiseach whether he intends that there will be a discussion on the European Monetary System tomorrow after his statement, in accordance with the agreement made in October?
Since no agreement has been made and since no terms have been set forth I do not see the value of a discussion at this stage. I have indicated publicly already that I would envisage, if the terms disclosed next Monday and Tuesday in Brussels are sufficiently attractive, indicating my intention to recommend them to the Government and to the Dáil in which event there would be a debate on the terms. In my view that would be more useful at that stage.
I want to be clear on this matter. Is the Taoiseach saying that no commitment will be given at the Summit and that the matter will be referred to the Dáil before any decision is reached?
That is not true.
That is what I want to know.
I said that if I made a commitment it would be made subject to the terms being approved by the Government and the Dáil.
Does the Taoiseach accept that when we originally discussed the arrangements for debates he specifically accepted that there would be a debate in the Dáil, and a document produced before that, before a decision was taken? The Taoiseach expressed some doubt as to whether the European Council would take decisions but he said there would be a debate before the decision was taken. He is now telling us the decision will be taken which he will recommend to the Dáil. Is he not required by his previous promise to have a debate tomorrow before that decision is taken?
I did not give any positive undertaking. The Deputy tried to read into my reply the other day that I gave such a firm undertaking but I did not. There was no intention on my part to avoid a debate but I did not anticipate at that stage—I could not—the course of the bilateral discussions that have been taking place since. Even if bilateral discussions could have provided agreement bilaterally they were not able to provide overall agreement on the terms which we would be prepared to accept. These terms have not yet emerged and I cannot see, usefully, what the purpose of the debate would be. My intention is to make a statement and I do not know that any good purpose would be served in a debate afterwards.
Would the Taoiseach agree that it is quite reasonable for the Opposition to request a debate and a full discussion on a series of visits not only undertaken by the Minister for Finance but by the Taoiseach? Surely it is possible at this stage, instead of a statement tomorrow by the Taoiseach, for him to start a debate tomorrow and continue on Friday. In a matter such as this which is of such tremendous importance to the development of the nation it is reasonable in a democratic society to have a full debate before any undertaking or commitment is entered into. Undoubtedly, the Taoiseach gave that commitment and it is too important a matter to be going in on what an SDLP member described as Lynchspeak. The Taoiseach gave a commitment to the House and any normal person listening to the words he uttered would take it as a commitment. Surely the Taoiseach should honour that commitment.
I am not accepting at all that I have a commitment to honour and if I did make a firm commitment it would be honoured. It is only fair to say that three weeks ago I could not anticipate the development of the negotiations that have taken place since then. Negotiations have not developed to the point that I could set forth to the House the conditions in any certain fashion under which we might enter the EMS. I cannot do that and I do not know, therefore, on what basis a debate could ensue.
Will the Taoiseach accept that making distinctions between commitments and firm commitments has unhappy echoes in this House of similar adjectival references eight years ago and that we ought either between us here enter into commitments or not enter into them. There should be no adjective attached to them. Will the Taoiseach accept that there is considerable public disquiet and concern and that throughout the country people are asking what this is about and what the pros and cons are? Every politician is faced with such questions and the people are entitled to be told something before a decision is taken which is then recommended to the House to be put through by the Government's majority? Does the Taoiseach accept that the British Government this week issued a Green Paper and agreed to a debate? If the people of Britain are entitled to that why are we not? We are a sovereign State also and a democracy.
I am sure the Deputy has read that Green Paper and I do not know that there is a lot of information for the British public in that Green Paper.
It is more than we had published.
I should like to state again that we had an unlimited debate already in the House.
None of us, including the Taoiseach, knew anything about it then.
It was a debate without any strings attached.
It was acknowledged by the Taoiseach to be a preliminary debate.
I did not interrupt any Opposition speakers and surely I am entitled to the same courtesy from the Opposition.
I was pointing out a matter to the Taoiseach.
The Deputy can point out what he likes because he does not know what he is talking about. I said on the occasion of the last debate that there would be another debate. At no stage did I intimate that it would be definitely before. I am not going to go into the polemics of the situation now but I sincerely believe that without the terms under which we could enter the EMS being known—they will not be known until after the meeting in Brussels of the Heads of State and Government next week—I cannot see the usefulness of a debate. There is little more known now to the House than was known before. As far as making the public aware of the situation to date I intend in my statement tomorrow to give the fullest possible information in it.
I am sure the Taoiseach would agree that the question of whether and how any aid and transfers that might be provided would be used to assist this country and the affected sectors to adjust to the problems of EMS is a matter that we should discuss usefully in this House before we enter into a commitment in relation to the EMS which involves aid.
We are not going to debate the EMS at this stage.
We have discussed this matter fully and I will not allow it to go any further.
The problem is that we have not discussed it fully. The Taoiseach gave an undertaking that the first debate was an initial one. He gave an undertaking also that the Government would publish a White Paper.
The matter has been discussed fully.
That is not so.
The Deputy is engaging in repetition.
Surely we are entitled to have a full discussion on the meeting that took place between the Taoiseach, the Head of State of France and the Head of State of Germany.
The Taoiseach has said he will make a statement on the matter tomorrow.
The Taoiseach has not been honouring his undertakings in this regard.
We are still in the negotiating position.
We must proceed with the Order of Business.
Can the Taoiseach explain why we cannot have a debate on the issue although the British can debate it?
What is the Deputy talking about? Have we not had a debate?
The British are having one now during the negotiations but we are not being allowed the same facility.
(Interruptions.)
Order.
I asked the Taoiseach on 11 October if he would agree to making available Government time for debate on the Ó Briain Report. He indicated that he would consider the matter and I am wondering whether he has completed his consideration.
I have not completed my consideration of this question but I do not think that time is available for a debate on it at present.
I appreciate that there are difficulties regarding time but I shall raise the matter again.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle I wish to raise on the Adjournment the subject matter of Question No. 7 on the Order Paper for Thursday last, 23 November.
The Chair will communicate with the Deputy.
Can the Taoiseach say whether No. 15 on the Order Paper will ever be taken?
What is that?
It is a motion asking the Dáil to take note of the financial statement made by the Minister for Finance on 1 February 1978.
(Cavan-Monaghan): In other words, it is last year's budget but it is still on the Order Paper.
Surely that has been debated.
Why, then, is it still on the Order Paper?
Perhaps the debate was not concluded.
There is not much time left now to conclude it.
As the Deputy knows, it does not have to be finished. There are many precedents for this.
Deputies
The Deputies not being allowed to speak.
Perhaps the reason for the debate not being finished is that the effects of the last budget have not been removed.