Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 30 Apr 1992

Vol. 418 No. 9

Order of Business.

It is proposed to take No. 14. It is also proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that:

(1) the proceedings on the Second Stage of No. 14 shall be brought to a conclusion at 4.45 p.m. today and the Minister for Finance shall be called on not later than 4.15 p.m. to conclude the debate; (2) the Dáil shall meet tomorrow at 10.30 a.m. and shall adjourn not later than 4 p.m.; (3) the proceedings on the Second Stage of No. 15 which shall be taken tomorrow, shall be brought to a conclusion at 12.30 p.m., if not previously concluded and the Minister for State at the Department of Justice shall be called on not later than 12.15 p.m. to reply to the debate and (4) any divisions demanded tomorrow shall be postponed until 6.45 p.m. on Wednesday, 6 May 1992.

There is no reference in the Order of Business to the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill being taken tomorrow or to Bill business after 12.30 p.m. tomorrow. Was that a mistake?

I respectfully suggest we deal with the business before us and then we shall deal with any other matters that may arise.

It will be on tomorrow's Order of Business.

In the light of yesterday's statement by the Attorney General, will the Taoiseach make time available today for statements in the House so that he can clarify the conflicting advice that apparently has been given by the Attorney General and allow the House to comment thereon?

I have to deal first with the Order of Business as announced by the Taoiseach. Are the proposals for dealing with No. 14 satisfactory?

I wish to protest very strongly at the guillotining of the Second Stage debate of the Finance Bill. There are only about four hours left to debate the Bill and there will be very little opportunity for me to speak. I was not allowed to speak on the budget either due to insufficient time being made available. One of the Opposition spokespersons spoke for an hour and a half yesterday, which is much too long.

I take it that the proposal for dealing with No. 14 is agreed? Agreed, with Deputy Garland dissenting. Is the proposal regarding tomorrow's sitting satisfactory? Agreed. Are the proposals for dealing with No. 15 agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for postponed votes tomorrow agreed? Agreed.

I would like to repeat my request to the Taoiseach to allow time today for statements in the light of the comments made yesterday by the Attorney General and of the apparent conflicting advice he has given at different times to the Government, according to Government statements. Such statements would provide an opportunity for the Taoiseach to clarify the precise position in relation to the Attorney General and for the House to comment thereon.

Let us not forget that which is in order and that which is not in order on the Order of Business.

Is is perfectly in order for us to seek time in the House for statements in relation to remarks by a constitutional officer who must be answerable to this House.

The Order of Business deals primarily with legislation promised.

Has the Taoiseach no answer?

In relation to legislation published yesterday, the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1992, may I ask the Taoiseach if it is the Government's intention to publish an explanatory memorandum?

Everybody is only too well aware of what the Bill is about, but if there is a necessity for further explanation we will be only too glad to supply it.

As I understand it, it is normal to publish an Explanatory Memorandum. Perhaps the Taoiseach could give some clarification as to why in this Bill the wording is quite different from that used in the Single European Act and at the time we joined the EC, particularly as the Bill refers to bodies competent under the Treaties. Will the Taoiseach clarify whether we are talking about new bodies other than the institutions of the Community? For example, are we referring particularly to the European Central Bank or the Western European Union?

Aspects of detail do not arise now. There will be ample time for that.

It would save trouble if the Taoiseach clarified these matters now rather than leaving them until next week's debate.

There is surely another way of dealing with the matter.

We will provide an Explanatory Memorandum if that is necessary.

Will it refer to the Western European Union?

Will the Taoiseach indicate what steps the Government propose to take to ensure that the postal services do not come to a complete stop?

I am sure the Deputy will find a more suitable opportunity for raising this important matter. It does not arise now.

I do not expect to have the opportunity to put this question to the Taoiseach later.

The House dealt with this matter earlier this week.

I appreciate that a Cheann Comhairle, but in view of the fact that since that debate An Post have suspended 500 employees and have effectively locked them out——

The Deputy has made his point; the matter is not in order now.

It seems that An Post are clearly bent on creating a crisis.

The Deputy must desist from making further references to the matter.

Could the Taoiseach indicate what steps the Government propose to take to resolve this issue?

Deputy De Rossa is persisting despite the ruling of the Chair.

Have we to wait for the Attorney General to make a statement?

I have been asking patiently in this House about the promised legislation on the powers of the Comptroller and Auditor General. I know the Taoiseach, the Minister for Finance and the Chief Whip have taken a personal interest in this matter. Will the Taoiseach say when the Government intend to publish this legislation because I have been asking for a long time to have this legislation published?

The legislation will be available shortly and it will be taken in this session.

In the list of legislation to be published shortly there is an indication that, finally, the Bill enabling decent compensation to be paid to the workers of the former Irish Shipping Company Limited — who were so shamefully abandoned by successive Governments since the collapse of that company — will be taken. May I ask the Taoiseach when this Bill will be published and when the House will be allowed to debate it? Will he give us an assurance that it will be given priority so that this long-standing scandalous situation will be rectified without further delay?

This item is with the parliamentary draftsman for drafting.

A Cheann Comhairle, may I ask——

The Deputy tends to argue his case and that is not in order.

I accept the Taoiseach's answer that the Bill is with the parliamentary draftsman, but may I ask if he will give priority to bringing this legislation forward so that it will not be unduly delayed.

The Deputy has made his point quite effectively.

Will the Taoiseach give this matter priority?

It will be discussed by the Whips.

How does the Taoiseach propose to have the short guide to the Maastricht Treaty distributed to every household before the referendum on the Maastricht Treaty? Given the central role of An Post in this matter, will the Taoiseach use his position to bring both parties in the dispute together in order to have it resolved?

Deputy Ryan is circumventing the ruling of the Chair in this matter.

It is a very important issue.

May I ask the Taoiseach if the Government intend to take action to validate the mortgage protection policies of members of the Defence Forces?

It has already been done. I was ahead of the Deputy.

May I take it from the Taoiseach's indication of response — if I might call it that — that an Explanatory Memorandum will be published in advance of the debate next Tuesday and that it will identify the bodies competent under the Treaty as mentioned in the Bill?

Members will have the Explanatory Memorandum in their hands before Tuesday.

Will the Minister for Agriculture and Food be making a statement to this House on the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy talks which are taking place this week?

This should be dealt with in another way.

In times gone by statements were made.

Barr
Roinn