It is proposed to take Nos. 8 and 19. It is also proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that; (1) business shall be interrupted at 10.30 p.m. tonight; (2) No. 8 shall be decided without debate and (3) the proceedings on the Committee Stage of No. 19, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 10.30 p.m. by one Question which shall be put from the Chair and which shall, in relation to amendments, include only amendments set down or accepted by the Minister for the Environment. Private Members' Business shall be No. 38, Motion 42.
Order of Business.
Is the proposal that business be interrupted at 10.30 p.m. tonight satisfactory? Agreed. Is the proposal that No. 8 be decided without debate agreed?
May I ask the Taoiseach if consideration will be given to including a small addition to the motion which simply provides that the committee can sit in public—in other words, be open to the press? At present the committee cannot be open to the public by reason of the Standing Order which provides that only a committee who have the power to send and search for witnesses can be open to the public. The committee will be severely disadvantaged if their proceedings cannot be observed by the media who can report on the interesting and important matters being discussed.
I regret that I cannot give a definite commitment in this regard at this stage, but I will have the matter examined. That is as far as I can go at this stage.
I take it that the proposals for dealing with No. 8 are agreed.
When will the legislation in this respect be brought forward?
This refers to the terms of reference of the Crime Committee. I take it the proposal that No. 8 shall be decided without debate is agreed. Agreed. Are the proposals for dealing with No. 19 agreed?
Ninety four amendments have been put down to the Committee Stage of the Housing Bill. We are being asked to rush these amendments through the House before 10.30 p.m. This is one of a number of Bills to which the Government have applied a guillotine since Christmas. It is totally unsatisfactory that a matter of such importance should be dealt with in this way. I am not saying that the Bill is necessarily contentious, but we should not pass legislation which has not been adequately debated and all amendments considered in full. The Taoiseach is not doing this House any service by trying to push this Bill through in this short amount of time. We object to this proposal.
It is an effort to cover up the housing crisis.
I agree with the remarks made by Deputy Barry. This Bill was promised when the Plan for Social Housing was published in February 1991. We have had to wait until recent weeks to see this Bill. In view of the fact that 30,000 people are waiting for public housing it is outrageous to attempt to push this Bill through the House before 10.30 p.m. We object to this proposal.
In line with the other speakers, I think it is extraordinary that an attempt is being made to deal with more than 90 amendments in approximately five hours. It is also proposed that the Report Stage, which will be taken in a day or two, will be dealt with in two hours. This is a grossly inadequate way of dealing with legislation. We have a serious housing crisis at present and rushing legislation through the House is not the way to deal with it: it is a question of dealing with the legislation properly and adequately and having a proper debate on the issues concerned.
The plan was launched in February and the Bill was published on 24 March——
The plan was published in February 1991.
Last year.
The Bill was published on 24 March 1992.
A year and a half later.
Let us hear the Taoiseach's statement.
Sixteen and a half hours were allocated to the Second Stage debate. With regard to the amendments which have been put down to the Bill, 35 have been disallowed and 20 are improved drafting, technical amendments. Therefore, we are really only talking about 35 amendments. Everyone wants to see this Bill passed, so we should get on with the business.
May I respond to what the Taoiseach has said?
This cannot give rise to debate now. I am putting the question.
Question put: "That the proposals for dealing with No. 19 be agreed to."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 64; Níl, 60.
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cullimore, Séamus.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Flood, Chris.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Harney, Mary.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kelly, Laurence.
- 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.
- Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- O'Toole, Martin Joe.
- Power, Seán.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Roche, Dick.
- Smith, Michael.
- Stafford, John.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl
- Ahearn, Therese.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Belton, Louis J.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Currie, Austin.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Garland, Roger.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Lee, Pat.
- McCartan, Pat.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, Richard.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Cotter, Bill.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- McGrath, Paul.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Gerry.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
- Yates, Ivan.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Dempsey and Clohessy; Níl, Deputies Flanagan and Howlin.
Question declared carried.
On the Order of Business, may I ask the Taoiseach if he will consider asking the Minister for Foreign Affairs to brief the House on the present state of talks taking place in London involving the parties in Northern Ireland and the British Government and any subsequent developments? It need not necessarily be today but some time between now and the recess. I think it appropriate that we have a briefing from the Minister in that regard.
Ordinarily these are matters that are dealt with outside the House. They are not regarded as being entirely appropriate to the Order of Business. I would prefer that we continue in that fashion.
This is very important. I do not want to enter into an argument with you but I consider it appropriate that the Taoiseach respond to the request I have made for a briefing in this House, before the recess, by the Minister for Foreign Affairs on the talks in London and on the other talks.
Deputy Barry and I appreciate how important these historic discussions are but, until the House may decide otherwise, the Chair must continue to interpret what is in order and what has been repeated ad nauseam, and matters of his kind are not regarded as appropriate.
The Leaders of the Labour Party and of Fine Gael last week questioned the Taoiseach on this matter, he responded and I fail to see how the position has changed this week.
We have a position here—and I say this with all deference to the position of the Taoiseach—the Taoiseach is not permitted to change the Order of Business or to change Standing Orders. No one is entitled to do that until what already exists is changed.
Standing Orders do not dictate that the Taoiseach cannot respond to a request for a debate in this House. It is for the Taoiseach to respond or not to respond. I ask the Taoiseach, in what is, I hope, a courteous manner, to request a briefing from the Minister for Foreign Affairs some time between now and the recess on the talks that are taking place in relation to Northern Ireland. I do not think that is an unreasonable request or that I am putting it in an aggressive manner.
The Chair did not make any such insinuation. Deputy Barry will appreciate that the Chair is characteristically courteous too and would wish to accommodate everyone in this House. However, the Chair is indicating that requests of this kind, irrespective of the subject matter or its importance, are not traditionally regarded as appropriate. I must comply with the tradition of the House until such time as it may be changed by the House.
I do not wish to cause problems.
I support the request made by Deputy Barry. When ordering business for the remainder of this session, it ought to be in order for this House to have an opportunity at least of being informed of the ongoing developments in relation to Northern Ireland consequent on the Hillsborough Agreement. It would be very valuable to Members to have such a briefing. On another matter, may I ask the Taoiseach whether, in view of the trenchant remarks made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce yesterday, he considers he has the confidence of every member of his Government?
He has and you know that well.
Did the Deputy run around the Olympics?
Deputy Spring will appreciate that he has not helped the Chair in respect of what is in order and what is not. I am quite sure he knows that, whatever prompted the question, it is not in order at this time.
I would like to ask the Taoiseach if he will issue a statement about the unparliamentary behaviour of two of his Ministers, the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Health.
Deputy Deasy.
I wish to make a very important point.
The question of the behaviour or misbehaviour of Ministers is not appropriate to the Order of Business.
Let us hear the Deputy out.
Deputy McCartan, if and when the day comes that you occupy this Chair, you can dictate to the House. I have heard enough to realise that Deputy Byrne is not in order in asking the question he has asked.
On a point of order——
I am talking about matters of principle and about parliamentary procedures.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, three weeks ago this House was given an assurance by the Minister for Agriculture and Food and the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture that compensation would be paid to cucumber growers who were blameless in so far as the recent problems in that industry were concerned. I cannot get confirmation from the Department as to whether compensation will be paid. As the Minister is not present would the Taoiseach inform the House by tomorrow whether, as promised, compensation will be paid?
The Deputy will understand that there are ways and means by which he can correctly pursue that matter, for instance, by way of Private Notice question as it is not appropriate for the Order of Business.
But we did. We had four questions tabled on the one day in regard to it.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle——
I would like to know if people will live up to their promises.
Is the Deputy talking about the beef industry?
On a point of order, what remedy is available to those Deputies who tabled questions to the Minister for Health regarding clinical waste and the incinerator at St. James's Hospital and which were replied to on Wednesday last, 24 June, but when the Minister failed to make any announcement in relation to the incinerator while on the same day he issued a letter to the Minister for Finance stating that it had been decided not to proceed with the incinerator. The letter, while the questions were being answered in the House, was being circulated in the constituency despite the fact that the Minister for Finance had no part in the campaign against the siting of the incinerator.
I do not know whether the Deputy has availed of the assistance that is always available to any Deputy in respect of anything that may be an irritant to him.
May I ask you, Sir, if you would be agreeable to refer these two letters, one from the Minister for Finance and one from the Minister for Health plus the Official Report of last Wednesday, 24 June, to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges to investigate whether the privileges of this House were abused?
The Deputy is an experienced Deputy and realises that he can pursue that matter in another way.
With great respect, I believe that the Chair has a very important role in protecting the privileges of this House and its Members when a Minister comes in here and declines to give information to the House. Yesterday another Minister accused the Taoiseach of the same thing. In the case in question, the Minister concerned had written to the Minister for Finance who was circulating a leaflet in the constituency which contained information which was not given to the House.
That is not appropriate to the Order of Business.
In the light of Commissioner MacSharry's severe criticism of the Government's county road policy when addressing a General Council of County Councils in Letterkenny last weekend, can the Taoiseach say when the Roads Bill will be taken? Will it be completed this term?
The Bill mentioned by the Deputy is going into special committee over the summer period.
I want to raise four items on the Order Paper, Nos. 15, 16, 17 and 18. They deal with Dáil approval being required for the European economic area—Association Agreements with Poland, Hungary and the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, if they still exist by the time we approve them. In the light of the admitted information deficit during the Maastricht debate, will the Taoiseach make time available before the recess to ensure that there is a full debate on these four items in respect of which he is seeking Dáil approval?
We will let the Whips discuss it, and see what they come up with.
The Taoiseach has no bright ideas?
Not yet.
For God's sake, do not come up with any.
Will the Minister for Social Welfare inform the House when the Pensions Board report will be placed before the House? It has been a long time coming and the Minister for Social Welfare has frightened the wits out of elderly people and social welfare recipients. Why is that report not here, as promised for the last three months?
Deputies
Hear, hear.
A parliamentary question would elicit that information.
The Minister is like a will-o'-the-wisp running around the country.
The question is not in order, but the Deputy can expect it very shortly.
Will the Taoiseach say when the Dáil will be given an opportunity to debate the Green Paper on Education?
It is a matter for the Whips to discuss.
The Taoiseach, when replying to the Labour Party's Ethics in Government Bill in May last year, intimated, as Minister for Finance, that there was a case to be looked at for funding political parties. Has the Taoiseach given any consideration to that and does he propose to introduce any legislation or to create any committees to investigate the possibilities?
I do not think such intimations constitute promised legislation in the normal sense of that term.
When will the Bill to provide for an automatic joint ownership of the matrimonial home be circulated? This was promised for the last session; it was promised for this session, and we are now told that the failure to circulate it is holding up the publication of the White Paper on Marriage Breakdown.
The text of that Bill is being drafted at the moment. There are still a few complex issues to be sorted out.
Is it likely that it will be published before the October session? Will it be circulated after we return from the summer recess?
It should be ready for publication before the next session.
The Taoiseach on a number of occasions in ths House indicated that a register of a declaration of interests of Members of this House would be in place in September of this year. As this House is apparently finishing at the end of next week, will the Taoiseach indicate when the details of this register will be made known to Deputies and whether there is to be a debate in this House next week on the proposals in relation to the register of Members' interests?
I expect Government proposals will be with the Committee on Procedure and Privileges within a matter of days.
For tomorrow's meeting?
In a few days.
The meeting is tomorrow.
They will have another one next week.
Could I——
Will it emerge from the Committee on Procedure and Privileges for discussion in this House before we adjourn for the summer recess? It would seem to me that if it does not, it will not——
That is a matter for the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
——be published for the register to be established by September next.
An Leas-Ceann Comhairle
The Deputy cannot have a debate on it now.
The Government are reneging on a very serious issue, a matter of concern to all Members on both sides of this House. It would seem particularly apposite in the context of events taking place elsewhere.
Deputy Shatter has made his point and has had his reply.
Will the Taoiseach arrange to have the efficiency audit group report on the Army, commissioned by his predecessor, laid in the Oireachtas Library and furnished to the Opposition spokespersons for Defence? This request was made in this House on at least five previous occasions.
I will have a look at it.
It is not in order. Deputy Taylor-Quinn can pursue that in her characteristic efficient way by other means.
The Chair will be aware that on a number of occasions this matter was raised in this Chamber, and through the appropriate channels, to no avail. I am now asking the Taoiseach to arrange to have this report laid in the Library.
It is only right to point out that the Deputy had a question on this down to the Minister for Defence today.
We were told the Taoiseach would deal with it.
May I inquire from the Taoiseach——
(Interruptions.)
——if he could tell us where is the Telephone Tapping Bill, having regard to the fact that——
In the other House.
——excerpts from the telephone discussion between the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the inspector in Greencore are widely available? Does the Taoiseach discount any involvement by his party in the circulation of defamatory material which I and other Deputies have recently received?
Deputy Rabbitte has asked a question and is not entitled to make a speech. The Deputy received an answer and perhaps the answer could be given to him again.
The Bill mentioned by the Deputy is at present in the Seanad.
In view of the fact that we are now approaching the dying days of the Dáil session——
The Dáil.
——if not the dying days of the Dáil if signals from the Castle are correct, and in view of the fact that the Roads Bill is now being referred to special committee, at what stage is the legislation to provide for the broadcasting of deliberations of this House in special committee, and will that Bill be passed before the end of this session?
I understand that the matter is before the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
With the greatest respect to the Taoiseach, there is no legislation before the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
I did not say that.
I seek the Chair's help and guidance in a matter which has given me some considerable trouble over the weekend. Last Thursday in the immediate confines of this Chamber, in short, outside the door, my free passage was impeded and I was verbally threatened by the Minister for Health, Deputy O'Connell——
Deputy, there is a means by which matters that happen in private can be dealt with in private, but certainly there is no tradition whereby that to which the Deputy refers can be dealt with on the Order of Business.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, it is a basic right of any TD——
(Interruptions.)
What is the present position in relation to the promised or threatened amendment to the Broadcasting Act, particularly in relation to the publicised intention to remove the cap on advertising on RTE?
Is there something promised?
Yes. It is a matter of how one looks at it as to whether it has been promised or threatened. I was referring to the Broadcasting Act. On a number of occasions in this House there have been indications that amendments to the broadcasting legislation were imminent. The indications came from the present Minister and the previous Minister.
Má tá a leithéid ann, ní heol domsa. Níl sé liostaithe.
My memory serves me very well. I clearly recall it, and I recall that there was considerable interest in the previous legislation as well. Will the Taoiseach indicate whether there will be amending legislation on broadcasting early in the next if not in this session?
The Deputy is defeating his own case in so far as he is asking "if" and the question must refer to what is there, what has been promised. It cannot be both.
I will rearrange my tenses.
(Interruptions.)
In fact, the pluperfect is the appropriate tense for what is happening over here.
(Interruptions.)
There having been promised legislation in the area of broadcasting which would amend the legislation which we now enjoy, or under which we suffer, may I ask when the promised legislation on broadcasting will be brought before the House?
The Chair will now ask if there is promised legislation. Is there promised legislation?
There is no legislation promised. A review of the policy in that regard is taking place.