Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 6 May 1986

Vol. 365 No. 14

Order of Business.

The Taoiseach

It is proposed to take Nos. 22 and 23 (Vote 19).

By agreement, the Dáil shall sit later than 9 p.m. today and not later than 11.30 p.m. and business shall be interrupted at 11 p.m.

Also by agreement, the proceedings on Committee Stage of the Finance Bill, 1986, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion in accordance with the following timetable; and where proceedings are to be concluded at a stated time they shall be concluded by one question which shall be put from the Chair, and which shall, in relation to amendments, include only amendments set down by the Minister for Finance.

Timetable

Proceedings	Time at which Questions shall be put
Tuesday 6 May 1986	Sections 3 to 26 inclusive	7 p.m.
Wednesday 7 May 1986	Sections 27 to 54 inclusive	6 p.m.
Thursday 8 May 1986	Sections 55 to 105 inclusive Schedules and Title	4.30 p.m.

Also by agreement, Vote 19 shall be taken at 8.30 p.m. and the order shall not resume thereafter. Also by agreement, the proceedings on Vote 19 shall be brought to a conclusion not later than 11 p.m. tonight and the Minister for Finance shall be called on to conclude not later than 10.45 p.m. Also by agreement, if a division is challenged on the Estimate today, the taking of such division shall be postponed until 8.30 p.m. tomorrow.

Also by agreement, at the conclusion of business today, the Dáil shall adjourn until 12 noon tomorrow.

Private Members' Business shall be No. 49, Motion No. 68.

An Ceann Comhairle

Are the arrangements for the late sitting agreed?

Mr. Haughey

Yes.

An Ceann Comhairle

Are the arrangements for the taking of the Finance Bill Committee Stage agreed?

Mr. Haughey

Agreed.

An Ceann Comhairle

Are the arrangements for the taking of Vote 19 agreed?

Mr. Haughey

Agreed.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is it agreed that the Dáil on its rising tonight shall adjourn until 12 noon tomorrow?

Mr. Haughey

Agreed. I want to ask the Taoiseach about the taking of the legislation which will introduce the referendum on the amendment to the Constitution. Would he accept that the Opposition are looking for three days on Second Stage, with an interval of a week and then two days for Committee Stage? Is he prepared to agree to a timetable of that order?

The Taoiseach

That is a matter for the Whips. My understanding is that the proposal was that there should be a two day debate on Second Stage and that is agreed, and that it was proposed that there be a one day debate on Committee Stage. I understand that the Opposition sought a second day and that was agreed. That is how the position stands.

Mr. Haughey

I am raising the matter here because the Whips have been unable to reach agreement. I understand that is because the Government are taking a certain position. I want to suggest to the Taoiseach that this legislation deals with one of the most fundamental matters that legislation can deal with, namely, an alteration in the Constitution. It would be unheard of and unthinkable that this legislation should be rushed through the Dáil. We on this side of the House are quite prepared to facilitate the Government to the greatest possible extent in ensuring that this matter is decided by the people in a calm, non-political atmosphere. I suggest that at the minimum we would take three days to discuss Second Stage and then, as is traditional, have a reasonable interval and take Committee Stage within a week after the conclusion of Second Stage. I suggest that is a very reasonable timetable for important legislation of this kind and I am asking the Taoiseach to agree in principle to it so that the Whips can work it out.

The Taoiseach

We have been reasonable about this. Originally, we proposed two days for Second Stage and a day for Committee Stage. The Opposition came back and agreed to two days for Second Stage and suggested a second day for Committee Stage. We immediately agreed and the matter was settled. I do not understand why it has been reopened at this point by the Opposition after agreement has been reached by the Whips.

Mr. Haughey

There is no agreement between the Whips. The Whips cannot reach agreement on this matter because of the position of the Taoiseach and the Government. I am now suggesting to the Taoiseach that it is a reasonable proposition to allow three days for Second Stage debate on constitutional amendment legislation. I have been in this House, Sir, when the Dáil took about six months to discuss legislation in regard to a constitutional amendment. We are suggesting that the minimum the Taoiseach should agree to and the minimum that we can be expected to agree to is three days for Second Stage, at least, an interval of a week, followed by two days for Committee Stage. I think that is eminently reasonable and, in fact, the general public would regard us as doing less than our duty if we did not give at least that amount of time to legislation to amend the Constitution.

The Taoiseach

The business of this House depends upon agreements being reached and adhered to. We originally proposed a timetable which involved the taking of the Bill a week earlier than is now proposed. The Opposition asked for an extra week, we gave it. We proposed a two day debate on Second Stage and a one day debate on Committee Stage. The Opposition agreed to two days debate on Second Stage and proposed a two day debate on Committee Stage. We agreed to this. We cannot proceed on the basis of the Opposition continually changing their position. We have already accommodated them fully on this matter and the work of the House would become impossible if the Opposition go back on agreements which have been reached.

Mr. Haughey

I regret the Taoiseach has decided to introduce that note into this exchange. I want to tell him that the Opposition did not agree to anything on this matter so far and I am asking him if it is not reasonable for the Opposition on legislation to amend the Constitution to seek a three day Second Stage debate? We have speakers on this side of the House who are anxious to contribute and who would take more than three days even apart from any Government speakers.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Haughey

We are prepared to take the legislation reasonably expeditiously and I suggest, Sir — and I want the Taoiseach to agree in principle so that the Whips can work out the details thereafter — that it is not unreasonable to look for three days for Second Stage, have an interval between the conclusion of Second Stage, as we always have on much less important legislation and then proceed with a two day debate on Committee Stage. If any particular Deputies want to rush this legislation through the House in slot machine fashion, they will not find us co-operating.

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Mr. F. O'Brien)

I want to put the record straight. I sought to have the debate as early as possible. I sought two days and a day. This was not agreed to. The Opposition Chief Whip asked me to consider two other days, 14th and 15th, and the 20th for Committee Stage. I consulted with the Government and asked whether these dates would be suitable to facilitate the movement of the legislation through the House. They said yes and I informed the Opposition Chief Whip of the position. This was satisfactory. My office received a call asking to consider another day for Committee Stage as it would, certainly in the eyes of the public, be better to run a Committee Stage a second day. This is something that was not sought in any serious manner. I had further discussions with the Opposition Chief Whip and I agreed but there never was any question of a third day for Second Stage. I want to make that quite clear and I want to put that on the record. I am satisfied that the time given——

Dr. Woods

This is Dáil Éireann.

Mr. F. O'Brien

And I might add that this side is the Government side and we order the business.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. F. O'Brien

I want to make that quite clear. As my record shows I like to co-operate with the Opposition, be it on the Finance Bill or otherwise. I am always prepared to co-operate with the Opposition as I believe it is how one gets business done in an orderly fashion but I have to say that we are not getting co-operation on this matter. I have made it quite clear that we are giving a second day but I have to say that there is a move here to frustrate the movement of this legislation through the House.

Mr. Haughey

I must totally reject that. First of all, this side of the House are co-operating with the Government in getting the Finance Bill through which has to be through before a certain date. That is co-operation. Secondly, I do not think the Chief Whip of the Government can seriously suggest that the Second Stage of legislation to amend the Constitution should be taken in two days.

Mr. F. O'Brien

The Opposition agreed to it.

Mr. Haughey

We never agreed to it.

The Taoiseach

Twice.

Mr. Haughey

We did not agree to it and I am stating here now that we cannot agree to it.

Mr. F. O'Brien

I am stating that there was agreement for two days on Second Stage.

An Ceann Comhairle

I would remind Deputies that there is no motion before the House.

Mr. Haughey

I am suggesting to the Taoiseach that this legislation cannot be put through the House as if it was of no particular consequence or importance. I think the Taoiseach would have to agree with that. It is a matter which has been outstanding for a long time. It is now finally being brought before the House and I think, having regard to the dignity of the House and the importance of the subject, reasonable time should be given to it. Three days for Second Stage, followed by an interval, and two days for Committee Stage is, I believe, a reasonable proposal on our part. We have already shown a certain degree of co-operation in regard to the legislation; we have indicated that we do not propose to oppose it passing through the House but it is legislation of some complexity and great significance and I think three days to allow Deputies to debate it on Second Stage and two days on Committee Stage is not unreasonable.

Mr. V. Brady

The Government Chief Whip knows full well that there was never final agreement on the arrangements for taking this debate. We have discussed it on numerous occasions. We have disagreed over the past two weeks and the Government Chief Whip knows full well also that I have been requesting over the past two weeks an additional day for debate on Second Stage.

Mr. F. O'Brien

No.

Mr. V. Brady

Since the introduction of this Bill the Whips have been discussing the various arrangements for debating. Various proposals have been put forward by both sides, I might add, but there never has been final agreement. The Government Chief Whip knows very well that I have been seeking an additional day for Second Stage for the past two weeks. That agreement has not so far been forthcoming. Hence, the matter is being raised in the House this afternoon.

Mr. F. O'Brien

I have to reject that because we did agree to two days and all that was at issue was another day on Committee Stage which I conceded. As I indicated, I have my gravest suspicions as to why all this is being raised.

An Ceann Comhairle

The matter is before the House now. If it cannot be resolved, I propose moving to the Finance Bill.

Mr. Prendergast

With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, could I raise on the Adjournment tonight the question of the threat to human health arising from the supply of diseased meat to Sarsfield Barracks in Limerick city?

An Ceann Comhairle

I will communicate with the Deputy.

Mr. Haughey

I asked the Taoiseach a specific question, if he will agree with me in principle on the matters I have outlined. It can then be arranged by the Whips in a convenient manner.

The Taoiseach

I have accepted it. We have agreed to the request made on two occasions for Second Stage. I do not propose to fall for the kind of trickery that is now being attempted in this House.

Mr. Haughey

I categorically reject that statement. Will the Chair ask the Taoiseach to withdraw it?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair regards it as a political charge.

Mr. Haughey

The Taoiseach used the word "trickery". We are trying in a straightforward manner to carry out the business of this House and that expression should be withdrawn.

An Ceann Comhairle

I regard that as a political charge and political charges are made across the floor of the House day after day.

Mr. Haughey

This is not a political charge.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair is ruling that it is.

Mr. Haughey

We are endeavouring to order the business of this House in a straightforward and honourable manner. I reject categorically the statement made by the Taoiseach. The Chair should support me in asking him to withdraw the word "trickery".

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy has denied it and I will leave it at that.

Mr. Haughey

I regret that the Chair is taking that attitude. It is unworthy and cowardly behaviour for the Taoiseach not to answer the specific questions I am putting to him on this occasion.

Mr. Allen

May I ask why my Private Notice Question in relation to——

An Ceann Comhairle

No. I am calling the Finance Bill.

Mr. Allen

Could I have permission to raise on the Adjournment the question of nuclear submarines in the Irish Sea?

An Ceann Comhairle

I will communicate with the Deputy.

Mr. E. O'Keeffe

I wish to ask the Taoiseach, in the absence of Deputy Noonan, Minister for Industry and Commerce, now that agreement has been reached by the chief executive of NET and ICI and the fact that there is a 100 page document before the board of ICI for final discussion, if he would explain to this House why that document was not discussed by the Cabinet ——

An Ceann Comhairle

It does not arise on the Order of Business.

Mr. E. O'Keeffe

—— and if there is now a real danger that NET ——

An Ceann Comhairle

Will the Deputy please co-operate with the Chair? That does not arise on the Order of Business. I am calling the Finance Bill.

Mr. O'Kennedy

Could I ask the Taoiseach if he is aware of the fact that at 2 o'clock this afternoon I, as spokesman for Finance, got about 20 pages of amendments in the name of the Minister for Finance?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy can raise that matter on the Bill.

Mr. O'Kennedy

The Taoiseach misinformed this House about the Finance Bill. It is on the Order of Business. The Finance Bill is two weeks later coming into this House than was promised by the Taoiseach.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is eroding the time available for the Finance Bill.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I accept this agreement as entered into between the Whips. Since that agreement was entered into, the Minister for Finance has furnished further amendments which cannot be reached on this timetable.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should have raised that matter on the motion dealing with this timetable.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I am doing that now. I want to make known the consequence of the Taoiseach's failure to honour his stated undertaking to this House. The debate on the Finance Bill is being made a nonsense.

Mr. P. Gallagher

I wish to ask the Taoiseach when it is proposed to introduce the Dog Control Bill?

The Taoiseach

This session.

Mr. P. Gallagher

Will it be enacted before the summer recess?

The Taoiseach

With the co-operation of the Whips, it will be.

Mr. Barrett

(Dublin North-West): Could I have permission to raise on the Adjournment the decision by the Government not to continue the funding of the Suss centre in Ballymun?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair will communicate with the Deputy.

Mr. F. Fahey

While I accept the Chair's decision to disallow my Private Notice Question, could I ask for permission to raise on the Adjournment the plight of farmers in the Connemara region?

An Ceann Comhairle

I will communicate with the Deputy.