It is proposed to take Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 2. It is also proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that: (1) No. 4 shall be decided without debate and, subject to its agreement, all stages of the Appropriation Bill, 1995, shall be taken together without debate and shall be decided 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 Finance; (2) No. 5 shall be decided without debate; (3) The proceedings on No. 6 shall be brought to a conclusion within one hour and the following arrangements shall apply: (i) The speech of each Member called upon shall not exceed ten minutes in each case; (ii) Members may share time; and (iii) A Minister or Minister of State shall be called upon to make a speech in reply which shall not exceed ten minutes; (4) The Second and remaining Stages of the Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 1995, shall be taken today and the proceedings thereon, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 4.45 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; and (5) The Dáil shall sit tomorrow at 10.30 a.m. and shall adjourn not later than 4.45 p.m.
Order of Business.
Are the proposals for dealing with No. 4 satisfactory and agreed?
While I accept it is near Christmas, the Government should not deem it necessary to apply such brevity to matters and play fun and games with the Opposition. Is the Taoiseach seriously asking Opposition parties to accept, on the nod, the Appropriation Bill that, based on yesterday's Estimates, will provide for a nominal increase over last year of more than 10 per cent in current expenditure? If last year's once-off amnesty expenditure is excluded, the increase will amount to 13 per cent. Are you, Sir, asking us to put through that Bill on the nod? Either you or the Taoiseach is trying to be funny because in relation to amendments——
I am not involved in this procedure. These are the Taoiseach's proposals. I will hear brief comments from Members opposing the matter and then I will put the question.
Were you thinking about what President Clinton said about you?
I withdraw my remarks on the Chair. Is the Taoiseach seriously asking us to agree, without debate, an Appropriation Bill which, under the programme, A Government of Renewal, will increase expenditure from 6 per cent to 13 per cent, or 10 per cent if the amnesty expenditure is excluded?
What is the Deputy talking about?
If the Minister of State listened he would know what I am talking about. We are asked to accept only Government amendments. How can the Opposition agree a Bill that will increase expenditure to such an extent? How can it table amendments to a Bill it has not seen? Will the Taoiseach explain to my colleague how he expects us at 10.38 a.m. to pass, without debate, a Bill we have not seen?
A Bill that provides for the expenditure of millions of pounds.
The Taoiseach told my colleague. Deputy McCreevy, yesterday that it would not be possible to produce the Appropriation Bill until the Supplementary Estimates were passed and that as soon as they are approved the Bill would be available. The Estimates were agreed in haste at 12 o'clock yesterday.
I hesitate to interrupt the Deputy but I am sure he will appreciate that if items on the Order of Business are opposed, brief speeches only are permitted and then the matter is put to a vote. The Deputy has had some latitude and I ask him to bring his speech to a conclusion.
I will do that but I am sure you will appreciate that you are asking the Opposition to pass, without debate or amendment, a Bill that we have not seen.
I argued yesterday — I apologise for my disorderly behaviour and that of my colleagues; I made the same point on Tuesday — that if the Government wished to make £60 million available to meet the cost of the claims pending from women who have contracted hepatitis C, the seriousness of whose position was outlined by my colleague, Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn, this should be provided for in legislation. I now notice that the Government intends to provide in the Appropriation Bill which we have not seen — item No. 4 on the Order Paper —"for the setting up, and payments on an ex gratia basis out of, a special account to be funded from moneys provided by the Oireachtas in the Health Vote in respect of a scheme of compensation...” Does that not prove that there was illegality, as I argued for two days, for which I was denounced by the Taoiseach?
We also oppose the proposal that the Appropriation Bill, which we have not seen, be taken without debate. The Government is asking us to approve its publication, to then take all Stages without debate and to accept amendments in the name of the Minister for Finance. This is crazy. The Government set a spending limit of 6 per cent in its programme for this year, but it has fallen at the first fence in the credibility stakes. Public spending is rising at four times the rate of inflation. It seems the Taoiseach, Deputy Bruton, in his mature years, has been converted to the spend and tax policies of his socialist buddies in Government.
He has no choice.
It is not good enough that this should happen without debate. The Labour Party has added £3 billion to the national debt since it entered Government three years ago.
What did we cut in Tallaght?
The Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, has asked me what I would cut; the first thing I would cut out is his ministry.
It is unreasonable for the Taoiseach who claims to be committed to Dáil reform to ask us to approve the publication of the Appropriation Bill, to then take all Stages without debate and to accept amendments in the name of the Minister for Finance only. Will the Taoiseach agree to a debate this morning?
I indicated yesterday that if the Opposition wanted a debate on the Appropriation Bill, it could have one, but no such request was pressed.
There is such a proposal before the House. The Taoiseach should not talk nonsense, it is up to him to make such a proposal.
For two weeks I have been seeking a debate on the Appropriation Bill. The Taoiseach should check with his Chief Whip.
I have been a Member for a good while and each year the Appropriation Bill is introduced in this way. Leave to publish is sought and it is then taken straightaway, usually without debate. If one checks the records of the House for the past 25, 30 or 40 years, one will find that the procedure about which the Opposition parties are working themselves into a lather was followed by them when in Government year on year without objection.
I am glad that at last the Opposition parties have rediscovered their voices and I welcome this participation on their part, but I hope they will find a real target affecting real people rather than this imaginary, manufactured moral outrage about procedures which they followed with monotonous regularity when in office. It shows just how disconnected the Opposition parties are from the concerns of ordinary people that this procedure should be the issue upon which they should choose to find their long lost voice in the House.
I am now putting the question.
On a point of order——
On a point of order——
On a point of order, the Taoiseach said that he would agree to a debate, but then voted against it.
The Deputy should calm down. The position is that I have indicated, as the Leader of the House, that if the Opposition wants a debate on the Appropriation Bill, it can have one.
The Taoiseach should withdraw item No. 4 on the Order Paper.
Furthermore, I am prepared to amend the Order of the Business to provide for this.
Do it.
I am happy to allow one hour for a debate on the Bill this morning in addition to the time we are allowing for a debate on the Estimates next week.
We had to force the Taoiseach to agree to this.
The fact is that the Opposition was perfectly happy when provision was made for a debate on the Estimates next week, but now it wants a debate on the Appropriation Bill as well. As far as we are concerned, it can have one.
The Taoiseach is a reluctant democrat.
It is not a matter of concern to me one way or the other. Let us proceed with the debate.
We should not waste time, we are still on the Order of Business. I intend and must conform to and administer the rules of the House which Members made for me. They expect me to do so. Does the Deputy accept the Taoiseach's offer of a one hour debate on this matter?
Of course, we accept his offer, but in all reasonableness the debate should not take place until we have had an opportunity to examine it. We do not know what it contains. The Taoiseach's claim that it is not a matter of concern rings hollow. When public expenditure rises by over 10 per cent, it is a matter of extreme concern.
I respectfully suggest, having regard to what the Taoiseach has announced, that the Whips should meet to discuss the matter and decide when the debate should take place.
Agreed.
For the purpose of clarification, it is my understanding that it is appropriate to take the decision to publish the Bill without debate.
Agreed.
We cannot debate the Bill until it is published with the leave of the House. I suggest that the House agree to its publication without debate and the Whips can then meet with a view to making the necessary arrangements.
We accept the Taoiseach's volte-face.
There has not been a debate on the Appropriation Bill for years, but we are facilitating the Opposition on this occasion.
We have concentrated on the Estimates in recent years.
Neither I nor my colleague, Deputy Fox, are represented at the Whips' meetings. It might be appropriate to take the debate on the Appropriation Bill tomorrow morning. I understand, from what the Minister for the Environment said, that it may not be necessary to provide a full day for the debate on the Waste Bill about which I was not consulted although I had tabled 166 amendments on Committee Stage. It would suit me if that Bill was taken in the afternoon.
Proposal for dealing with item No. 4 withdrawn.
I am sure the Deputy's comments will be noted. Is it agreed that No. 5, the motion re the Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs, shall be decided without debate? Agreed. Are the proposals for dealing with No. 6, the motion re the Select Committee on Members' Interests of Dáil Éireann, satisfactory and agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 2, the Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 1995, satisfactory and agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal that the Dáil shall sit tomorrow satisfactory? Agreed.
On legislation which has been promised, would the Taoiseach like to take this opportunity to apologise for his volte-face regarding what now appears under the Appropriation Bill, payments on an ex gratia basis out of a special account to be funded from moneys provided by the Oireachtas in the Health Vote in respect of a scheme of compensation established or to be established by the Minister for Health and for connected matters? Will the Taoiseach thank me for preventing him and the Government from any illegality regarding the £60 million as this is the legislation which covers this matter to which my party leader referred yesterday? Is the Taoiseach willing to correct the record of the House, to apologise to me or to thank me for that?
For an experienced Member Deputy McCreevy is displaying a great lack of familiarity with financial procedures. Every year for the past 25, 30 or 40 years the Appropriation Bill has contained reference to every Supplementary Estimate.
Incorrect.
The Taoiseach should admit he got it wrong.
It is a pity the Taoiseach did not realise that.
All that is happening on this occasion is that the procedure for referring in the Appropriation Bill to the Supplementary Estimate — in this case we are dealing with a Supplementary Estimate for Health — is being followed as before. If Deputy McCreevy understood the content of Appropriation Bills, he would realise that every Supplementary Estimate is provided for, that the statutory basis for all public spending is contained in the Appropriation Bill and that every Supplementary and ordinary Estimate can only be legally effective when incorporated in an Appropriation Bill which must be passed at the end of each year. What is happening here is exactly the same as happened every year in the history of this State.
The Taoiseach got it completely wrong.
He had his hand in the till.
Why did the Taoiseach not say that yesterday.
The only difference on this occasion is that the Government is allowing the Opposition the opportunity to debate the Appropriation Bill for I believe the first time in the history of the State. Furthermore, we are allowing the House to discuss the Estimates for the next week.
Is the Taoiseach not a great fellow?
The House will discuss the Estimates for this year this week and the Estimates for next year next week and the Members opposite will be thoroughly exhausted in terms of oratory by the end of Christmas.
No, we will not be exhausted.
There were 20 Supplementary Estimates before the House yesterday and this is the only Supplementary Estimate that has been included in the Appropriation Bill. The Deputies opposite were plainly caught with their collective hands in the till.
As the Chair is aware, there was a very good idea some years ago to hold seminars for new Members to explain financial procedures to them. I suggest we run a special course for Deputy McCreevy and that he be enlisted as a member.
The Taoiseach would be the first pupil.
Deputy McCreevy would benefit enormously from such familiarisation.
The Taoiseach got it wrong and he has been proved wrong.
Deputy O'Rourke, who is a former teacher, will appreciate that it is never too late to learn.
The Taoiseach was proved wrong.
Deputy McCreevy would benefit greatly from such a course. If there is any difficulty in finding guest lecturers, I am sure many Members from this side of the House could lecture Deputy McCreevy on financial procedure and the role of the Appropriation Bill.
The Taoiseach would be the first pupil at the seminar.
Deputy McCreevy would benefit enormously from such an addition to his ample educational experience.
Can a Member from this side of the House get a word in?
The Taoiseach was proved wrong.
Colleagues, I wish very much that a special course were designed for Members as to how they should behave on the Order of Business and that the Order of Business might be restructured so as to avoid all this unnecessary turbulence.
Does the Deputy wish to come in here to give a party political broadcast?
The Taoiseach should go back to primary school.
He would be the first pupil at the seminar. He needs special teaching.
If the Taoiseach is setting up classes, he should start by learning how to get a budget through the House.
He is not very good at that.
I recall that the Taoiseach said in reply to Deputy McCreevy that in the Appropriation Bill all Supplementary Estimates must be mentioned. If what the Taoiseach said is correct why is only the Health Estimate mentioned on today's Order Paper? For once this week will the Taoiseach tell the facts and say that he was advised by the Department of Finance circular 32/95, dated a few days ago, that under section 24 of the Exchequer and Departments Act that he had to specifically include in the Appropriation Bill the money concerned.
The Taoiseach was incorrect.
What is new about this? That has always been the case.
This is definitely a case of the Opposition learning on its feet.
I will hear no more speeches on these Estimates. It is neither the time for debate nor is it Question Time.
It is on-the-job learning.
The Taoiseach was caught with his hand in the till.
I thank the Taoiseach for agreeing to allow an hour's debate this morning and I believe it is correct to have it. I hope he does not hold an inquiry into the leak Deputy Ahern brought to the attention of the House as we have had so many inquiries. Since the Taoiseach did not compliment Deputy McCreevy, I would like to be man enough to bring to the attention of this House that we owe a great deal of gratitude to Deputy McCreevy for bringing this matter to our attention.
Old friends are best.
That goes to prove that old friends are best.
This is no mere infatuation.
There is more than Deputy Cullen returning to the fold. Welcome home. Remember the problems she caused the last time, Mary.
Has the Attorney General been consulted since this debate yesterday by either the Taoiseach or the Minister for Finance given that we were told that he did not need a legal basis to include a Health Estimate but it has been included today in the Appropriation Bill? That is a U-turn that could only have been brought about by the Attorney General telling him that he had to bring it about. It is a monumental U-turn and a climb down. The Taoiseach should apologise to this House for doing that. Has the Attorney General been consulted on this point?
I believe that it has been indicated that there should be no further debate on this matter. Let us proceed with the business of the House.
Was he or was he not consulted?
We have heard much over the past couple of days about creative accounting. Will the Taoiseach confirm if the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry has reached a settlement with the CPSU whereby they will be paid before Christmas in respect of overtime in 1996?
Deputy Michael Ahern has been offering. I want to get on to the business proper.
Will the Taoiseach confirm what has already been notified to the hospitals throughout the country that all parties in this Government have decided to viciously slash the allocation to hospitals for 1996? It is in writing.
This is very good. We have one Deputy Ahern telling us we should cut spending and another Deputy Ahern telling us we are not spending enough.
The futility of consistency.
I call Deputy Dermot Ahern.
A Deputy
Here is another Deputy Ahern, the man they call Ahern.
Let us hear the Deputy in possession.
Obviously the barb I threw at the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, about feeding the baby seems to have hit. Over the last week I questioned the Taoiseach in relation to the freedom of information Bill. I asked if it would be possible to debate this Bill, before publishing, at a committee and the Taoiseach gave an undertaking that that was being put in train. Yesterday I tabled a question to the Minister for Equality and Law Reform and the answer I got was that the Bill, once published, would then go to the committee for discussion. Will the Taoiseach clarify that issue? Will the Taoiseach also state if he is taking any action in relation to the leaking of the Government memorandum dealing with this Bill? We have been trying to find out what is in this Bill. Unfortunately when we look at one of the daily newspapers we find that the memorandum is being referred to verbatim. Will the Taoiseach please indicate——
Deputy Micheál Martin raised this matter yesterday.
I did.
I told Deputy Martin yesterday, and I can confirm to Deputy Dermot Ahern today, that this Bill will be taken in heads form at a committee of the House on 10 January 1996. The Deputy can ventilate all the matters he wishes concerning the Bill on that occasion.
I call Deputy Noel Ahern for a final question.
A Deputy
Another Ahern, No. 4.
I do not mind bringing up the rear on behalf of the clan. Yesterday the Taoiseach told the House that as soon as the Supplementary Estimates were passed at 12 o'clock, the Appropriation Bill would be issued. Will the Taoiseach confirm that the reason it is not available to us this morning is that it had to go back for reprinting?
No. As Deputy Harney could tell the Deputy, the Appropriation Bill can only be published with the leave of the House. The leave of the House is normally obtained the day following the passage of the last Supplementary Estimate.
Why did the Taoiseach not say that yesterday?
The last Supplementary Estimate was passed yesterday and the leave of the House for the publication of the Appropriation Bill was sought at the first available opportunity, which is this morning. That leave has now been obtained and the Bill will be made available to all Members and will be debated very soon.
I wish to raise two matters. What the Taoiseach said is factually incorrect — what he tried to do this morning was to put the Appropriation Bill through on the nod without any debate and without anyone in this House seeing it. If he wished to move it he could have brought it in later. The Order of Business for this week was not agreed with the Whips. The Government Whip disagreed on every issue this week. I wish the Taoiseach well at the Madrid summit and success in relation to the matters that affect this country. Will he confirm that we will have adequate time in which to debate the conclusions of the summit next week?
Yes.
Yesterday the Taoiseach replied to a question I raised in relation to the freedom of information Bill. The Taoiseach will recall that I asked him to confirm whether his Ministers and members of the Cabinet had seen the Bill and had been inspired by its contents. Has the Minister for Education read the heads of the freedom of information Bill? On four separate occasions in the House, through the device of parliamentary questions, both she and the Minister for Finance have refused me and other Opposition Deputies access to vital information. This is hypocrisy.
I asked for brevity. I want to facilitate the Deputy's two colleagues.
When will they make that information available to us?
On 3 October I asked the Taoiseach when the interdepartmental committee report on the islands would be published. I was told it would be published by the end of October. In November I put down a further question and I was referred back to the reply that we would get the report by the end of October. This was an extraordinary reply unless the Taoiseach meant October 1996. When will this long overdue interdepartmental report on the islands be published as the islanders are deprived of basic services?
A Deputy
They have been deprived all their lives.
The Taoiseach without interruption from either side of the House.
I am happy to tell the Deputy that the report will be available soon. I compliment the Minister of State, Deputy Carey, on the work he has been doing to ensure that the Government is enabled to respond in a meaningful way to this issue. This is the first Government that has asked a particular Minister of State to take responsibility for the most isolated communities in Ireland, namely those who live on the islands.
He was an afterthought.
This Government is determined to act in a meaningful way to deal with this problem. I thank Deputy Ó Cuív for raising the issue.
In the past we have been quick to bask in the reflected glory and successes of the Irish football team. Alas we are not going to Europe. It is appropriate to say that many of the people involved in that team have brought tremendous pride to this country and have represented us in an ambassadorial way. Many of them may go their separate ways. Whatever the future holds for them, collectively or individually, it is time to thank them for what they have done and to congratulate the Irish fans once more for the way they behaved in Liverpool last night and, indeed, to commend the Dutch fans.
That is a good note on which to conclude.