It is proposed to take Nos. 12 and 13. It is also proposed, subject to the agreement of the House that: (1) business shall be interrupted at 10.30 p.m., (2) the proceedings on the Committee and Remaining Stages of No. 12, and on the Committee Stage of No. 13, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 12.00 noon and 10.30 p.m. respectively by one question in each case which shall be put from the Chair and which shall, in relation to amendments, include only amendments set down by the member of the Government in charge of the Bill, and (3) Private Members' Business, which shall be No. 20, shall be brought to a conclusion at 8.30 p.m.
Order of Business.
Is the proposal that business be interrupted at 10.30 p.m. agreed? Agreed. Are the proposals for dealing with Nos. 12 and 13 agreed?
My party profoundly object to the proposal to impose a guillotine on the Competition Bill. The responsible Minister who for some reason is not even in the House at the moment has claimed that this is a very important piece of legislation, and he is correct. It is also complex legislation and it is wrong that the House which has been dealing expeditiously with it should be forced to deal with it under an unnecessary guillotine motion. This is novel legislation so far as this country is concerned. We have never had outright bans on anti-competitive practices——
The matter does not arise now. An indication of opposition is sufficient.
——and therefore it is extremely important.
The merits and the demerits do not arise now.
Sir, the fact is that this is novel legislation and it is important that the House has as much time as necessary to ensure that every aspect is teased out so that it actually works. The imposition of a guillotine is contrary to the best interests of this country and of the legislation.
The elaboration is for the Bill proper.
I would like to add to that. This morning there was a 15 page submission on the Competition Bill from the Incorporated Law Society, which is not a political organisation. This is something we are expected to understand and have absorbed and debated by 10.30 p.m.
The Deputy has made his point. I am calling Deputy De Rossa.
It is totally unreasonable and the Taoiseach obviously does not know what is going on if he allows this to be put through. It is ridiculous.
It is typical petulance.
Deputy Barry rose.
Deputy Barry, I have called another Member.
They are being railroaded into this by the Progressive Democrats without understanding what is involved.
Deputy Barry has made his point.
The point I wish to make relates to item No. 12, the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 1990. The proposal is to guillotine this Bill at 12 noon today. There are 21 amendments to that fairly technical and controversial Bill. Indeed, new amendments have just been circulated this morning. I do not see how we can be reasonably expected to agree to a guillotine on this Bill at this time given that new amendments have been circulated. As far as I can see it is, in any event, totally unnecessary.
The Deputy has made his point in respect of his opposition at this stage. May I take it that——
On a procedural point, if the Opposition wish to express the reasons they wish to oppose the guillotine surely it is sensible that the Dáil should hear why the Members feel a guillotine is unwise in a certain situation. It is a debate like any other debate and surely the Ministers and the Taoiseach want to hear the reasons——
The Deputy seems to be challenging the ruling of the Chair.
And should be here to justify them.
It is traditional that the merits of the motion or the Bill do not arise now.
This is a procedural point, I am not arguing with you. The point I am trying to make is that if you want to make a case not to impose a guillotine, surely it is only sensible that the Members on this side should have an opportunity to express their reasons.
The practice has been to allow a brief statement from the Members opposing.
On a point of order, why is the Minister for Industry and Commerce not here this morning? He should be here.
The Minister for Industry and Commerce has been abroad on important Government business and will be here to take the legislation. The Opposition are continuously objecting to the allocation of time motions which we bring in. We have to get on with our business here. It is the Government's duty to order business, to get legislation through the House and we are criticised if we do not. In every parliament a certain amount of time is allocated for a particular piece of legislation. That is the only way to get business done in a parliament.
A Deputy
By agreement.
We are doing that. We believe that this Bill has been before the Oireachtas for plenty of time. The time allocated now for the Committee and remaining Stages is ample and I do not really believe there is any reality in these complaints by the Opposition.
I do not wish to be contentious about this but it is obvious that the Taoiseach does not understand what is involved here. This is a Bill which will be adjudicated on by the High Court.
Every Bill is.
This Bill specifically refers the legislation to the High Court. It is most undesirable that it will be rushed through the House when there is ambiguity remaining in the Bill as is obvious from the 15 page submission received from the Incorporated Law Society.
I must dissuade Members from the notion that they may debate this matter in its entirety now.
May I simply make the point in response to what the Taoiseach has said in regard to the expedition procedure of Bills through this House, that we fully support that approach to dealing with Bills in this House. However it is not adequate to say that and then to proceed to allow less than one-and-a-half hours for 21 amendments——
This is the Deputy's second time speaking on the subject. He has made his point rather effectively. May I ask the House if the proposals for dealing with the items challenged, items Nos. 12 and 13, are agreed?
On a point of order, they are two separate items and I suggest that they be dealt with separately.
They are before me on the Order Paper together. That is why I put them together.
May I suggest, in the interests of expediting the business of the House, that we deal with them together? Would this not make sense?
That is what I was doing.
There is no point in having two votes.
May I ask if the proposals for dealing with Items Nos. 12 and 13 — the Courts (Supplementary Provisions) (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 1990, and the Competition Bill, 1991 — are agreed?
Emphatically not.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 70; Níl, 57.
Tá
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Calleary, Seán.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
- Cullimore, Séamus.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- Ellis, John.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Flood, Chris.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Stafford, John.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Kelly, Laurence.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Lyons, Denis.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, Jim.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Morley, P.J.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Noonan, Michael J.
- (Limerick West).
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- O'Toole, Martin Joe.
- Power, Seán.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Roche, Dick.
- Smith, Michael.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Bell, Michael.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Cotter, Bill.
- Creed, Michael.
- Crowley, Frank.
- Currie, Austin.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Finucane, Michael.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Foxe, Tom.
- Garland, Roger.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kenny, Enda.
- McCartan, Pat.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- McGrath, Paul.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Noonan, Michael.
- (Limerick East).
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Sullivan, Gerry.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Reynolds, Gerry.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
- Yates, Ivan.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Gallagher and Clohessy; Níl, Deputies Flanagan and Howlin.
Question declared carried.
Is the proposal that Private Members' Business shall conclude at 8.30 p.m. agreed? Agreed.
Deputy Gay Mitchell wishes to raise a matter on our behalf.
I am not aware that Deputy Mitchell claims to lead any group in here as yet.
He is a leading Member of the House.
Does the Taoiseach intend to request or direct the Minister for Health to make a statement to this House in relation to an allocation of funds for the Haemophiliac Society? Given that this matter has been debated continually in the House — it caused the Taoiseach to go to the country two years ago — is it not now appropriate that the Minister for Health should come into this House and explain the negotiations that have taken place with the other defendants——
Has legislation been promised in respect of this matter?
A large amount of Exchequer money will be spent. The Minister for Health made a statement on the matter outside this House last night and a further clarifying statement this morning from Carrickmacross. I am asking the Taoiseach to request the Minister for Health to take the earliest opportunity to issue a statement in this House in relation to——
I have allowed the Deputy to make his point but he may not elaborate at this stage.
I humbly request the Taoiseach to give some assent to the fact that this matter should be debated in this House.
Deputy De Rossa — on the same subject?
Yes. I want to raise two subjects, that one particularly arises because questions put down by my party on this issue were ruled out of order on the basis that the matter wassub judice, yet the Minister can refer to it on radio and in the newspapers. Apparently the sub judice rule applies only to this House. I would certainly welcome an opportunity for the Minister to answer questions in the House today.
May I also ask the Taoiseach when the Family Planning (Amendment) Bill will be brought before the House? It has been promised on a number of occasions. We have been told frequently that it will be produced quite soon, but still has not appeared. It is urgent legislation on which I am sure many Deputies would agree to a guillotine if the Taoiseach would introduce it quickly.
I am very grateful for that invitation to use the guillotine. The legislation is on course.
There is——
Let there be no argument. The Deputy has posed a question and has received an answer.
——a serious AIDS problem in this country.
Sorry, Deputy. That matter can be raised and elaborated upon at another time. I am calling Deputy Gay Mitchell.
A more free availability of condoms is essential to deal with the problem. It is not good enough for the Taoiseach to say that the Bill is on course because that is not true.
Deputy Gay Mitchell has been called.
Can the Taoiseach indicate when the legislation will be introduced in this House?
I would tell Deputy Spring that I am speaking not just on behalf of the Opposition but on behalf of the Committee of Public Accounts, one of the most active committees in the House over which I have great pleasure in presiding. In view of the fact that a lecturer in economics said on the "Gay Byrne Show" this morning that waste is not an issue, may I ask the Taoiseach, before Dr. Byrne and Dr. Barrett go on their three months' holidays, if he will assure the House that, not subject to the "Gay Byrne Show" or anybody else, but in line with the report of the Committee of Public Accounts, the legislation to improve and update the powers of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Committee of Public Accounts will be introduced in this session? This is a matter of concern on all sides of the House.
As Deputy Mitchell knows, I have already dealt with that matter on a number of occasions. The legislation is difficult and complex, but we are pushing ahead with it as rapidly as possible. In view of my respect for Deputy Mitchell who I know is very interested in this whole area of the Committee of Public Accounts, not just as a politician but also academically, I believe, I would strongly advise him not to take knee-jerk reactions to radio programmes.
I hope the Taoiseach will not be as annoyed with Deputy Mitchell's book when it is published as he seems to be with other publications.
That is on the record.
May I ask the Taoiseach if he has any intention of amending the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1927, under which ESB shops are entitled to sell electrical equipment? We have now reached the stage where 82 per cent of credit sales in electrical equipment are through the ESB shops, much to the detriment of their trading colleagues.
I respectfully advise the Deputy to raise that matter in a moral formal way. The Chair will be of assistance to him in that regard.
I ask the Minister for Health, who, unfortunately, could not be here last night to speak on health matters during the Adjournment debate — neither could the Minister of State for Health — to now read my submission made to the Dáil last night and abandon the crazy idea——
Please, Deputy McCormack——
But the Minister was not here to take his brief last night.
Deputy McCormack, you may not raise the matter now.
I have raised it. Your colleague, Frank Flanagan, started it. We want answers.
May I ask the Minister for the Environment when it is proposed to take the Roads Bill?
That is on the Order Paper.
I know it is on the Order Paper, but does the Taoiseach know when it will be taken? Has he been told yet?
That is a matter for the Whips, and I am sure the Deputy's Whip would be happy to make an input to the discussion.