It is proposed to take Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9. Subject to the agreement of the House, it is also proposed that Nos. 6 and 7 shall be decided without debate; the debate on No. 8 shall not exceed one hour and speeches, which shall not exceed 15 minutes in each case, shall be confined to the main spokes-person for each of the groups as defined in Standing Order 89 (1); notwithstanding the resolution of the Dáil of 4 July, the speech of each Member called on in the course of the debate on No. 9 shall not exceed 45 minutes and the Dáil, at its rising today, shall adjourn until 12.00 noon on Wednesday, 16 October 1991.
Order of Business.
There are four questions on which decision is required. Is the proposal that items Nos. 6 and 7 be taken without debate agreed to?
In relation to item No. 6, it is proposed to take without debate the amending Standing Order concerning Priority Questions and Private Members' Business. Before we agree that this matter be taken without debate, may I ask the Taoiseach whether it is proposed to have a serious debate on Dáil reform early in the next session? It is clear that there are many problems relating to the way Priority Questions in particular are dealt with in the House and a wide range of other issues need to be dealt with in relation to the way the House deals with its business. Before The Workers' Party agree to item No. 6 being taken without debate, I am anxious to know whether there will be a debate on that topic and related issues early in the new session.
As the Deputy probably knows, the reform group of the Committee on Procedures and Privileges have been examining these matters and it is likely that they will bring a report to the Dáil in the next session.
Is the first proposal agreed? Agreed. Are the arrangements for the taking of item No. 8 today agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal to change the time limit on speeches in respect of item No. 9 agreed to? Agreed. Is it agreed that the Dáil at its rising today shall adjourn until 12 noon on 16 October 1991?
No, Sir. My party do not agree that a holiday of that duration is justifiable in view of the fact that so much of the Government's business has not been transacted. There are eleven Bills before the House that were part of the Government's legislative programme for the period to this summer which have not yet been passed. Included in that list are the Roads Bill, which is quite important, the Environmental Protection Agency Bill and also the Family Planning Bill, which has not been published although it was promised for this session. We have also found that because of the lack of a proper committee system in the House legislation is not being taken quickly enough and Estimates are having to be put through in a fashion contrary to the Constitution. Fine Gael believe that for the Dáil, with so much uncompleted business before it to take such a long holiday at this time is unjustifiable, particularly in view of the fact that the Government apparently intend to use the holiday to impose very substantial changes in the provisions for public spending in various areas, some of which changes may cost employment. To take such action during the summer recess, when Dáil Members have no possibility of undertaking any scrutiny of what the Government are doing, is contrary to the proper functioning of a parliamentary democracy. The House should be in a position, which it will not be, to ask the Government questions about whatever they attempt to do in that regard.
I propose an amendment in relation to the proposed date of resumption of the Dáil:
"That the Dáil resume on Tuesday, 17 September 1991".
It is obvious that the Government have much business to attend to, but, unfortunately, their legislative programme has not been very successful during this session. The legislative programme is in tatters in relation to the amount of legislation that has not been put through the House. I know that Deputies will have much constituency work and research to do during the summer months but a recess until 17 September would be adequate in view of the amount of work that has to be done in the House. I am particularly disappointed that the Taoiseach has not seen his way to set up a committee on foreign affairs, a committee who could serve us well and could be working in the month of September in particular.
A number of the points which clearly have a bearing on the matter have been made and I shall confine myself to a few brief issues. The fact that the three parties in Opposition are opposing the resumption date in the way they are indicates clear public pressure. I do not consider these matters would be raised in the House unless there were public concern that the Dáil appears to be going into recess for a considerable length of time where there is clearly much work to be done and many problems to be dealt with. That highlights yet again the need to reorganise the business of the House in a way that ensures that the House not only does the work but is seen by the public to be doing its work. For Deputies to be heading off in this way for a number of months without there being any obvious attempt to reform the way we do our business is a mistake. Not only does it leave work undone, it undermines the credibility of Deputies and the Government in particular.
I must say I deplore most of this. It is an attempt to completely misinterpret the position and it is substituting procedure for substance. I will first deal with Deputy Spring's point. We did deal with 15 pieces of legislation and I think we would have been able to deal with more were it not for the fact that I, to an unprecedented extent, facilitated the Opposition in debates on current affairs which they pressed for and were of interest to them and which I acknowledge were of relevance. If the Deputies, with any degree of fairness, look over the record since January they will agree that there has been more of that type of discussion and debate in this House than ever before. I also want to point out that the committees of the House can meet as often as they like during the recess. In fact, I understand, the new committee on crime will be meeting next week. I would also like to make the point that the executive business of the State will be carried on unremittingly by the Government during the summer recess.
That is what worries us.
This attempt to suggest that unless this House is sitting nothing is happening is total rubbish.
Nobody suggested that. The problem is that there is no scrutiny.
I want to look for the moment at the position of Deputy Bruton in this matter. Deputy Bruton was a member, an important member and, I would suggest, a very robust member of the Fine Gael/Labour Government that existed between 1983 and 1987. The recess in 1983 by that Government was from 8 July to 19 October; in 1984 the recess was from 5 July to 10 October; in 1985 it was from 11 July to 23 October and in 1986 under Deputy Bruton, who was the main man in charge of Dáil business at that time, the recess was the longest ever, from 4 July to 22 October.
(Interruptions.)
Was the Taoiseach satisfied with that at the time?
(Interruptions.)
Maybe we could suppress the holiday ripple.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, my case rests.
And you are going to have three-and-a-half months rest.
Question put: "That the words and figures proposed to be deleted stand."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 70; Níl, 62.
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
- Cullimore, Séamus.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Flood, Chris.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kelly, Laurence.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lyons, Denis.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, Jim.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- O'Toole, Martin Joe.
- Power, Seán.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Roche, Dick.
- Stafford, John.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barry, Peter.
- Bell, Michael.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Bruton, John.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Cotter, Bill.
- Creed, Michael.
- Crowley, Frank.
- Currie, Austin.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Finucane, Michael.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Garland, Roger.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lee, Pat.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McCartan, Pat.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- McGrath, Paul.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Gerry.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Reynolds, Gerry.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Yates, Ivan.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies V. Brady and Wyse; Níl, Deputies Howlin and Ferris.
Question declared carried.
Question put: "That the Dáil on its rising today shall adjourn until 12 noon on 16 October 1991."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 72; Níl 62.
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
- Cullimore, Séamus.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lyons, Denis.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, Jim.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Flood, Chris.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kelly, Laurence.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- O'Toole, Martin Joe.
- Power, Seán.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Roche, Dick.
- Stafford, John.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Bell, Michael.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Bruton, John.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Cotter, Bill.
- Creed, Michael.
- Crowley, Frank.
- Currie, Austin.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Fannell, Nuala.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Finucane, Michael.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Garland, Roger.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lee, Pat.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McCartan, Pat.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- McGrath, Paul.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael (Limerick East).
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Gerry.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Reynolds, Gerry.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Yates, Ivan.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies V. Brady and Wyse; Níl, Deputies Flanagan and Howlin.
Question declared carried.
May I ask the Taoiseach if the Government will convey a view to the authorities in Northern Ireland or indeed in the United Kingdom on the march which is due to take place today in Pomeroy, County Tyrone? The irony of the RUC asking for restraint, tolerance and commonsense rings very hollow. I would ask the Taoiseach to make sure that the Minister for Foreign Affairs raises this matter at the next intergovernmental conference.
Deputy Spring appreciates that it is not entirely a matter for the Order of Business.
As this is the last day of the session and this is a very important matter, which I hope does not carry the consequences people have been talking about, I would like to see this matter on the agenda at the next intergovernmental conference.
The Deputy appreciates that any particular day does not free us from Standing Orders.
I am grateful for your tolerance.
I, too, would like to raise the same matter that Deputy Spring has raised with the Taoiseach. Nobody wishes to curtail the rights of the Unionists to march and commemorate events which took place however long ago, but when the marches are clearly provocative and pass through areas where they are not welcome by 95 per cent of the population, the Taoiseach and the Minister should convey to the British Government our concern about these matters and ask them even at this late stage to make an attempt to reroute the march and to ensure it does not happen again.
Again, the Chair appreciates the delicacy and importance of this matter but, unfortunately, it is not one which is provided for when discussing the business of the day.
With due respect, a certain latitude may be afforded to the Taoiseach if he wants to express a view on the matter. Even at this late stage some view should go from this House on what is proposed.
The Deputy appreciates that the Chair is not going to exclude the Taoiseach from expressing himself on any matter, whether or not the invitation from Deputy Spring were to encourage the Taoiseach to comment, but the Chair keeps stating the position of the Chair in respect of what is——
I am worried about the silence on the Government benches.
So am I; I would have thought the Taoiseach would have welcomed the opportunity now being presented to him, and the Minister for that matter.
Presumably the Taoiseach is more conscious of the position of the Chair and what is in order on the Order of Business than other Deputies may be.
As the House is about to go into recess would you allow me to ask the Taoiseach, following yesterday's Supreme Court judgment, if it is intended to bring forward legislation in the new session to deal with the question of persons in permanent and pensionable employment in the State who seek to subvert the State, or does he accept that it is perfectly acceptable for people to seek such employment and to subvert the State at the same time? Is it his intention to bring forward amending legislation?
Deputy Mitchell has defeated his own purpose in so far he has admitted that legislation is not promised. He may only ask a question on legislation that is promised.
The House will accept that this is a question which needs to be addressed and addressed in the open. We cannot be expected to give people permanent and pensionable employment in the State when they are out to subvert the State in every way they can. It is about time that this House examined this question and was prepared to take a stand on it.
The Chair does not take issue with the validity of the case made by the Deputy but would remind him of what is appropriate. There are means by which Deputies can apply themselves to have that matter resolved, if necessary, so that questions of that kind may be tolerated at this time.
Let me ask one brief question relating to the resumption date. Would the Taoiseach agree that when the Houses of the Oireachtas resume on 16 October it would be appropriate to extend an invitation to the President to address both Houses?
Níl sé sin in órdú.
Would the Taoiseach reply?
Níl sé sin in órdú.
May I ask the Taoiseach if he will avail of some of the time that will be available during the recess to lobby the other Heads of State in the European Community on Ireland's total opposition to the proposals to reform the Common Agricultural Policy?
Deputy Deasy, I think that you too, appreciate that that question is not in order.
It is very relevant.
Relevance or importance do not qualify it for inclusion in the Order of Business.
Would the Taoiseach indicate if he is going to do so?
As this is the last day of the sitting I, too, would like to raise a very serious matter. Two months ago the Minister of State at the Department of Health promised in the Dáil to give us a report on the incarceration of an innocent woman in St. Patrick's Institution. However it has not yet come through and the further delay would suggest that the matter is being covered up. I want an assurance that it will be made public.
This is turning into an Adjournment Debate.
Have respect for the Chair.
Deputy Fennell appreciates that the question she has asked is not in accordance with what is appropriate at this time. I suggest that we move on to what is appropriate——
On promised legislation——
Deputy Bruton.
The Government promised to introduce further legislation to reform local government following on the initial rather modest legislation which was put through some weeks ago. Would the Taoiseach indicate when the further and more fundamental legislation on local government reform which was promised by the Government will be presented?
No specific legislation is promised but the question of local government reform will be kept under constant review.
Is it not the case that the Government clearly indicated that the legislation we had before was preliminary and that further legislation would have to be introduced? After all, the local elections were postponed so that fundamental local government reforms could be introduced.
Deputy Bruton is stretching his case beyond what is provided for.
Let me be of assistance: the Minister for the Environment gave a specific commitment that before the end of the year new legislation would be enacted which would make provision for a new sub-county structure.
They are making statements.
I think it is that legislation which is being pursued.
We look forward to some day subsequent to 16 October when the Minister will be here to make a reply.
This should be pointed out to him.
Buailimis ar aghaidh go Uimhir 6.
Would the Taoiseach like to say anything about these matters?
If I were to say anything about these matters I would complain bitterly that we instituted a new grievance procedure so that this sort of constant attempt to turn the Order of Business into a second Question Time would be avoided. However as we are about to leave the House I am not going to be tendentious.
The Taoiseach is getting tetchy.
The Taoiseach should give us his absolution; he did it himself.
What I want to say is that, unfortunately, because of my obligations to the visiting Prime Minister of Canada, I will not be here at the close of business at 4 o'clock. I would like therefore to avail of this opportunity to wish your good self, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, and all the Members a pleasant, relaxed and enjoyable holiday during the recess.
Why not bring the Prime Minister in here as we want to catch a glimpse of him? I mistook him last Tuesday.