Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 11 Mar 1993

Vol. 427 No. 8

Order of Business.

It is proposed to take Nos. 1, 4, 5, 7 and 8.

It is also proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that: (1) Nos. 1, 4 and 5 shall be decided without debate. (2) The proceedings on Committee Stage of No. 7 shall be brought to a conclusion not later than 2.30 p.m. by one question which shall be put from the Chair and which shall in relation to amendments include only those set down or accepted by the Minister for Justice. (3) The proceedings on the Report and Final Stages of No. 7 shall be brought to a conclusion not later than 5.00 p.m. by one question which shall be put from the Chair and which shall in relation to amendments include only those set down or accepted by the Minister for Justice. (4) In the case of the resumed debate on No. 8, the speech of each Member called on shall not exceed 20 minutes. (5) The Dáil shall sit tomorrow at 10.30 a.m. and adjourn not later than 4.00 p.m. (6) Statements shall be made tomorrow on Aer Lingus and the following arrangements shall apply. (i) The statement of each Member called on shall not exceed 20 minutes. (ii) A Minister of State shall be called on not later than 3.40 p.m. to make a statement in reply not exceeding 20 minutes. (7) The Dáil at its rising tomorrow shall adjourn until Tuesday, 23 March 1993.

Is the proposal agreed that Nos. 1, 4 and 5 shall be decided without debate? Agreed. Are the proposals for dealing with the Committee Stage of No. 7 agreed?

The Criminal Justice Bill, 1993, was taken at the specific request of the Minister for Justice because of its very sensitive nature and urgency. The Minister in introducing the Bill said she would be prepared to accept amendments on Committee Stage. Will the Minister be present to steer the Bill through the House?

The Minister of State at the Department of Justice will take the Bill to finality and is fully competent to do so.

I want to raise two issues in regard to the same matter. First, the order is on the basis that when Committee Stage is completed the only amendments which will be taken in effect are those table by the Minister. During the last Dáil session it was agreed that if the Minister indicated that amendments from the Opposition were acceptable, they would then be accepted. Will the Taoiseach agree that that procedure will apply in this instance?

Secondly, in the context of the issue which my colleague, Deputy Kenny, raised, I am concerned that last evening at the close of the debate the Minister of State at the Department of Justice seemed to indicate that the Government lacked the capacity to accept any Opposition amendments today. I am concerned that that may be the case because he may not have the authority, in the absence of the Minister for Justice, to accept amendments. Perhaps the Taoiseach will clarify the question?

The arrangements requested by Deputy Shatter are already included in the Order of Business and the same procedure will apply. The amendments will be considered on their merit by the Minister. That is already included in the Order of Business.

Has the Government arranged to keep in contact with Sydney so that if the Minister is needed——

(Interruptions.)

Let us be serious about the Order of Business.

If the Deputy goes to west Cork he will lose his seat.

Sir, on a point of order, Singapore via Blackrock.

I take it the proposal for dealing with the Committee Stage of No. 7 is agreed? Agreed. Are the propoals for dealing with the Report and Final Stages of No. 7 agreed? Agreed. Are the speaking times for No. 8, the budget debate, satisfactory? Agreed. Is the proposal for tomorrow's sitting from 10.30 a.m. to 4 p.m. satisfactory? Agreed. Is the proposal that the Dáil on its rising tomorrow shall adjourn until Tuesday, 23 March 1993 satisfactory?

I understand that most of the Cabinet will be absent from the country and that is the reason we cannot sit next week.

The Tánaiste will be in Tralee.

Does the Taoiseach agree that it would be useful if committees of the House were in a position to meet next week and that provision would be made either today or tomorrow to establish a number of committees, which the Government intends to establish, so that some of them may convene next week?

We are taking a commonsense practical approach to the arrangements for sittings next week. We will take a week off the period of the Easter recess and take it at this time instead so there will be no loss of Dáil sitting time. On the question of committees sitting next week, this can be arranged and I believe two of the committees are ready to be set up and will be in a position to sit next week.

Order. I omitted to ask the House if it agreed with the proposals for dealing with statements on Aer Lingus tomorrow? Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item No. 7 seeks to adjourn the House tomorrow until Tuesday, 23 March, which effectively means that we do not sit next week. Even the proposal from Deputy Bruton that some committees would meet next week is apparently not acceptable to the Government. I regard this as an utterly disgraceful proposal.

Will the Deputy not make a speech on the subject, a brief reference should be sufficient?

A Cheann Comhairle, I am making a point in relation to a proposal before the House and I seek your indulgence to speak on the matter. It is an utter disgrace to propose that the House will not sit next week. The House is very well aware of the growing wave of cynicism about how we do our business.

The Deputy lost a great many days when he was in Europe.

There is no point in this House ignoring that fact. If we do, we will be digging the grave of this institution.

At this stage the Chair has permitted Members opposing the Order of Business to make a brief comment and no more. I cannot permit the Deputy to embark upon what is obviously a speech.

A Cheann Comhairle——

The Deputy may not make a speech now.

——I do not know, Sir, how you define comments and can distinguish between comments and a speech. I have a number of points to make and I must insist on making them.

I have not been on my feet yet for more than a minute.

The Deputy knows the view of the Chair in this matter.

This House has sat for the grand total of 43 days since we returned from the summer recess in October of last year. This Government has promised reform——

The information is there — 43 days——

How many days were you here Deputy when you were in Europe?

I was here as many days as you were, Minister. This Government which has promised so much with regard to Dáil reform should at least have regard to how we are perceived outside this House.

Talk about cynicism.

I take it then that the proposal that the Dáil at its rising tomorrow shall adjourn until Tuesday, 23 March 1993 is challenged.

Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 79; Níl, 39.

  • Ahern, Bertie.
  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Ahern, Noel.
  • Andrews, David.
  • Aylward, Liam.
  • Bhamjee, Moosajee.
  • Bhreathnach, Niamh.
  • Bree, Declan.
  • Brennan, Matt.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • Broughan, Tommy.
  • Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
  • Callely, Ivor.
  • Costello, Joe.
  • Coughlan, Mary.
  • Cowen, Brian.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • Dempsey, Noel.
  • de Valera, Síle.
  • Doherty, Seán.
  • Ellis, John.
  • Ferris, Michael.
  • Fitzgerald, Brian.
  • Fitzgerald, Liam.
  • Flood, Chris.
  • Foley, Denis.
  • Noonan, Michael. (Limerick West).
  • Ó Cuív, Éamon.
  • O'Dea, Willie.
  • O'Donoghue, John.
  • O'Hanlon, Rory.
  • O'Keeffe, Batt.
  • O'Keeffe, Ned.
  • O'Rourke, Mary.
  • O'Shea, Brian.
  • O'Sullivan, Gerry.
  • O'Sullivan, Toddy.
  • Penrose, William.
  • Power, Seán.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
  • Gallagher, Pat.
  • Haughey, Seán.
  • Higgins, Michael D.
  • Hilliard, Colm M.
  • Hughes, Séamus.
  • Jacob, Joe.
  • Kavanagh, Liam.
  • Kemmy, Jim.
  • Kenneally, Brendan.
  • Kenny, Seán.
  • Kitt, Michael P.
  • Kitt, Tom.
  • Lawlor, Liam.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Leonard, Jimmy.
  • McCreevy, Charlie.
  • McDaid, James.
  • McDowell, Derek.
  • Moffat, Tom.
  • Morley, P. J.
  • Moynihan, Donal.
  • Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
  • Mulvihill, John.
  • Nolan, M. J.
  • Reynolds, Albert.
  • Ryan, Eoin.
  • Ryan, John.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Smith, Michael.
  • Spring, Dick.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Upton, Pat.
  • Wallace, Dan.
  • Wallace, Mary.
  • Walsh, Eamon.
  • Walsh, Joe.
  • Woods, Michael.

Níl

  • Allen, Bernard.
  • Boylan, Andrew.
  • Bruton, John.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Burke, Liam.
  • Carey, Donal.
  • Clohessy, Peadar.
  • Crawford, Seymour.
  • Creed, Michael.
  • Cullen, Martin.
  • Currie, Austin.
  • Deasy, Austin.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • De Rossa, Proinsias.
  • Doyle, Avril.
  • Dukes, Alan M.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • Flaherty, Mary.
  • Flanagan, Charles.
  • Gilmore, Éamon.
  • Gregory, Tony.
  • Harney, Mary.
  • Higgins, Jim.
  • Hogan, Philip.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • Keogh, Helen.
  • McGahon, Brendan.
  • McGrath, Paul.
  • McManus, Liz.
  • Nealon, Ted.
  • Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
  • O'Donnell, Liz.
  • O'Keeffe, Jim.
  • O'Malley, Desmond J.
  • Owen, Nora.
  • Quill, Máirín.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Shatter, Alan.
  • Sheehan, P. J.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Dempsey and Ferris; Níl, Deputies Rabbitte and E. Kenny.
Question declared carried.

Mr. Bruton

In view of the fact that existing legislation appears to preclude this matter and in view of the concern of the half million mortgage holders in the Irish Permanent Building Society, has the Government any plans to make provision, by legislation or otherwise, to allow an authorative statement to be made on the provision by the supervisory authorities?

It seems quite obvious that this is not a matter for the Order of Business.

May I ask the Taoiseach if under section 41 of the Building Societies Act, 1989, the Minister for Finance intends to request the Central Bank to undertake an investigation into the affairs of the Irish Permanent Building Society?

The Chair's ruling on the matter should not be circumvented.

I am not trying to circumvent——

The Deputy must find another way of raising that matter.

I am trying to get information on the steps the Government intend to take——

It is not in order now.

Because of the high rate of unemployment and the fact that moneylending is endemic not alone in large cities but in every provincial town, will the Taoiseach give an assurance in relation to proposed legislation on the whole area of moneylending?

Is this legislation promised in the House?

I will communicate with the Deputy during the morning.

May I ask the Taoiseach or perhaps the Tánaiste, in light of the threat to access to tourist amenities as evidenced by events in Clogher Head in the Dingle Peninsula, if the Government will expedite legislation on occupiers' liability as contained, though not promised, in the programme for Government?

Silence.

Will the Taoiseach say whether he considers it healthy that a major financial institution is effectively in the hands of an oligarchy? While it is in family ownership——

The Deputy is showing flagrant disregard for the ruling of the Chair in this matter.

It is appropriate——

It may well be. There are many ways and means of raising this matter in the House and the Chair will assist the Deputy in the matter if necessary.

I have submitted a Private Notice Question on this matter but may I ask if the Taoiseach will be prepared to ensure that a full statement is made in the House today in view of the serious implications of the overnight developments in the Irish Permanent Building Society?

This is showing contempt for the Chair.

I am just asking that a statement be made to bring us up to date on this matter.

I am proceeding now to ask Deputy Martin Cullen to move his Private Members' Bill.

Barr
Roinn