It is proposed to take No. a1 on today's Supplementary Order Paper and Nos. 1 and 2. It is also proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that business shall be interrupted at 10.30 p.m. tonight; No. a1 shall be decided without debate; the Second Stages of Nos. 1 and 2 shall be taken today and shall be taken together for the purposes of debate and the following arrangements shall apply to this debate: (i) the speeches of the Taoiseach and the spokespersons nominated by Fine Gael, Labour and the Democratic Left shall not exceed 40 minutes in each case; (ii) the speech of any other Member called on shall not exceed 20 minutes and (iii) the Minister for Foreign Affairs shall be called upon not later than 1.55 p.m. on Thursday, 7 May, to conclude the debate if not previously concluded; and the Dáil at its rising today shall adjourn until 12 noon tomorrow. Private Members' Business shall be No. 25.
Order of Business.
Is the proposal that business be interrupted at 10.30 p.m. satisfactory? Agreed. Is it agreed that item No. a1 — Report of the Committee of Selection — be taken without debate? Agreed. Are the proposals for dealing with Nos. 1 and 2 agreed?
I wish to seek clarification from the Taoiseach with regard to the time proposed to be allowed for the debate on the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution. I understand from the schedule of business for the week that it is proposed to allow only one and a quarter hours for the Committee Stage debate on both the Referendum Bill and the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution Bill. Both Bills are extremely important and require more than one and a quarter hours to be dealt with on Committee Stage for a variety of reasons which I do not propose to go into at this point. Will the Taoiseach clarify that that is the intention or is he prepared, through the Whips, to reconsider that and extend the time available for Committee Stage?
In order to facilitate as many Deputies as possible on Second Stage it has been agreed that the times set out are the most appropriate.
We are not dealing here with formal decisions. We are dealing with a detail of a Referendum Bill which proposes fairly major incursions into the Irish Constitution. It seems that we do require some more time to deal in detail with this——
The Deputy has already made his point and he has made it quite adequately.
The Referendum Bill proposes to permanently alter the Electoral Acts of this country.
Surely, Deputy, you will have ample time to discuss these matters on the measures themselves.
I think it is only right, in the absence of any commitment from the Government to extend the time available, to state that we will be opposing any attempt to guillotine Committee Stage debate on Thursday.
I would like to express my complete agreement with what Deputy De Rossa said about the grossly inadequate time available on Committee Stage. As one of those people that he would seek to assist by allowing as long as possible a Second Stage, I would say that it would suit me and, I think, many back bench Deputies much better if we had a bit less time on Second Stage and more time on Committee Stage. Finally let me ask the Taoiseach why the Democratic Left have been singled out for time on this matter. They are not a recognised group within the House. The Green Party, Comhaontas Glas, and The Workers' Party are being given no priority time.
I think the Deputy would agree that they are slightly more in number than the Green Party. The desired option in relation to the agreement reached by the Whips was that this is a Bill that did not command that much time for Committee Stage and consequently maximum time was given to Second Stage.
In view of the fact that as far as the initial speeches are concerned a party of six Members, the Democratic Left, is receiving the same amount of time as the Government and a party of 55, the main Opposition Party, will you ensure that in allocating the limited time available for other speakers in this debate you will endeavour to achieve reasonable proportionality relative to the size of parties so that back benchers on both the Government and Opposition sides of the House will have an opportunity of contributing and will not find that they are deprived of that opportunity because of your wish to facilitate parties of one member?
The Chair strives always to call Deputies in a fair and equitable manner and does have regard to the rights of minorities also. Is the proposal that the House shall adjourn at 10.30 p.m. until 12 noon tomorrow agreed? Agreed.
The Government have indicated that they have certain proposals for the reform of the Dáil. Would the Taoiseach agree that it would be useful to have a debate here in plenary session of the Dáil, and that the discussion should not be confined solely to those who happen to be members of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges before decisions are taken, so that every Member of this House and, indeed, the public would have an opportunity to contribute on this very important matter?
The proposals are before the Committee on Procedure and Privileges for discussion. When the Committee on Procedure and Privileges have disposed of them I will certainly consider having a debate here in public session.
Does the Taoiseach actually understand the question I am putting? The question is if the Taoiseach would agree that it would be useful to have a discussion here in this House before the Committee on Procedure and Privileges come to decisions about the matter? Consulting the House after the Committee on Procedure and Privileges have reached agreement is irrelevant.
It is only Committee on Procedure and Privileges recommendations that come to the House. When they are finished with them we will certainly deal with them.
Let me bring to your attention and the attention of the Taoiseach my dissatisfaction with the procedure in relation to questions. As you are aware, Sir, it has been a longstanding precedent in the House that the Taoiseach would take questions in relation to statements made by him outside this House. I duly tabled a question to the Taoiseach asking him to elaborate on remarks he made at the IMI Conference in Killarney recently and it has been diverted to the Department of the Marine who, I assume, have no responsibility for the Taoiseach's plans for the Shannon region; they seem to have been thought up on the plane on the way to Killarney that morning. Is the Taoiseach changing precedent in this House or will he reply to questions in relation to the statements he has made?
I always reply to all questions that are given to me. I have never walked away from questions.
Can we have them tomorrow then?
The general office will always say, whenever a Taoiseach's question is referred to another Department, that they have no say in the matter and that it is the Taoiseach's Department who refer the question to another Department. As in other cases, this decision was taken by the Taoiseach's own office to refer that question to somebody else.
They probably found that it was the most appropriate Department to which to send the question.
How can they answer for you?
The Taoiseach is all at sea.
On a number of occasions, a Cheann Comhairle, the Taoiseach has indicated in this House that he intends to introduce legislation to deal with the question of travel and information for women——
Not again.
I appreciate the Taoiseach is probably bored stiff with this issue——
So is everyone.
——but there are hundreds of thousands of women outside this House who are not at all bored; they are very worried about the situation. Let me ask the Taoiseach in relation to promised legislation, in view of the current effort which appears to be on the way to prevent a pregnant woman leaving this country, if he intends to bring forward at an early date legislation to guarantee the right to travel and information for women in Ireland.
As I have already stated on a number of occasions, a Cheann Comhairle, the matters that the Deputy referred to will be the subject of legislation or a referendum or both in the latter half of the year.
These matters are coming before the House shortly.
Will the promised legislation updating the powers of the Comptroller and Auditor General be published this week?
Not this week.
Can the Taoiseach say how soon, because I have been looking for it since 1989?
I told the Deputy only a week ago that it will be in this session.
I hope the Taoiseach will not mind my impatience but we have been told that for a very long time. Can we expect the legislation soon?
The Deputy can expect the legislation during this session. I pushed it as far as I could as Minister for Finance and my colleague, Deputy Ahern, has completed the job.
Given that the third Telethon is taking place on Friday, have the Government considered the possibility of matching funds from the national lottery take by the Government for the very needy charities?
It does not arise now.
Given that there is now no legislation in the general area of justice and law reform on Second Stage for debate in this House, when does the Taoiseach anticipate that any one of the 16 legislative measures that were promised in the last review of Government will next come before the House for debate?
I have answered in detail every part of the question which Deputy McCartan raised. I will communicate the same information to him; as soon as any of the Bills are ready they will be brought forward.
In view of the fact that the national report on the Earth Summit has not yet been published, will the Taoiseach agree that there is no purpose in having statements on this conference on Friday? A vital national report, on which we should be talking, is not available. Why is it not available? Will the Taoiseach postpone these statements until next week?
I would prefer the Deputy to deal with this matter by way of ordinary questions.
Will the Taoiseach agree that there is a measure of public concern at present about the cost of judicial tribunals? Will he also agree that it would be useful if committees of this House were given the power promised to them by the Government in legislation agreed to be introduced at the time of televising the House to compel the attendance of witnesses and to grant such witnesses privilege? Will the Taoiseach agree that such legislation should be high on the Government's legislative priorities in view of the fact that it would provide a means of saving money on investigations which might otherwise have to be conducted at much greater cost by judicial tribunals?
This should be raised in a more appropriate way.
It is promised legislation.
Is it promised legislation?
Yes. On a point of order, are you aware, a Cheann Comhairle, that in the resolution approving televising this House the Government of the day — who are still in office — agreed that they would introduce legislation covering the compellability and privilege of witnesses? This was a specific promise, more solemn than any other in the sense that it is contained in a Government resolution approved by this House.
The question of bringing forward legislation on privilege is with the Attorney General. I agree with Deputy Bruton that there is serious concern about the escalating cost of inquiries and judicial tribunals in the public arena.
Will the Taoiseach agree that, in some cases at least, investigations by select committees of this House — if they could compel witnesses to attend — would be a cost-effective alternative?
We should wait until the ongoing investigations have been completed. We will then return to the question of what is the best way for the future.
In regard to the White Paper on Marital Breakdown, the Taoiseach's office advised me in March that it would be published in the near future. When will it be published?
It will be brought forward in the near future.
Is it the near, near future?
This long promised document is very eagerly awaited. Has any progress been made since it was last referred to in this House? Is something holding it up?
Progress has been made since it was last raised in the House and nothing is holding up its publication.
In view of the Taoiseach's statement at the IMI Conference in Killarney, is it his intention to introduce legislation to create a single ports authority for the Shannon Estuary to put his proposed trans-shipment industry in place?
Deputy Deenihan, you are slightly offside.
There is no such thing as "slightly offside".
Why is the Taoiseach not prepared to answer questions in relation to comments he made outside this House, first in relation to the Euro port for the Shannon Estuary and, second, in relation to the pilot school for Shannon? Is he in a position to explain how the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications, to whom this question has been transferred, will answer the question because she subsequently admitted that she had not put a proposal to the Taoiseach on the issue?
The Deputy has gone sufficiently far to convince the House that she is out of order.