It is proposed to take No. 8, motion re Appointment of Joint Committee on Standing Orders; No. 9, motion re Appointment of Members to Committee on Members' Interests of Dáil Éireann Joint Committee on Standing Orders; No. 10, motion re Referral of Arbitration (International Commercial) Bill, 1997 to Select Committee; No. 11, motion re Winter Time Order, 1997; No. 12, motion re Leave to introduce Supplementary Estimates [Votes 18 and 42] and, subject to the agreement of No. 12, to take Supplementary Estimates [Votes 18 and 42]; No. 13, Supplementary Estimates [Votes 10, 15, 17, 25, 30, 32, 35, 36, and 45]; No. 14, motion re Racism; No. 21 — Irish Film Board (Amendment) Bill, 1997 — Order for Report and Report and Final Stages; and No. 1, Scientific and Technological Education (Investment) Fund Bill, 1997 [Seanad] — Second Stage. It is also proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that: (1) the Dáil shall sit later than 8.30 p.m. tonight and business shall be interrupted not later than 10.30 p.m.; (2) Nos. 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 shall be decided without debate and any division demanded on No. 12 shall be taken forthwith; (3) subject to the agreement of No. 12, Supplementary Estimates [Votes 18 and 42] and No. 13 shall be moved together and shall be decided without debate by one question which shall be put from the Chair and any division demanded thereon shall be taken forthwith; (4) No. 14 shall be confined to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and to the main spokespersons for the Fine Gael Party, the Labour Party, the Progressive Democrat Party, the Democratic Left Party and the Green Party, who shall be called upon in that order, and shall not exceed 15 minutes in each case; and (5) No. 1 shall be taken today and the proceedings on the Second Stage thereof, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 10.30 p.m. tonight and the following arrangements shall apply: (i) the opening speech of a Minister or Minister of State and of the main spokespersons for the Fine Gael Party and the Labour Party shall not exceed 20 minutes in each case; (ii) the speech of each other Member called upon shall not exceed ten minutes in each case; (iii) Members may share time; and (iv) a Minister or Minister of State shall be called upon to make a speech in reply which shall not exceed ten minutes. Private Members' Business shall be No. 36 — motion re Housing Development in Carlow.
Order of Business.
There are five proposals to put to the House. Is the late sitting agreed? Agreed.
On a point of information, will the Tánaiste give details of the reason for moving a motion on the winter time order in the middle of December and say why it was not moved before now?
Does the Deputy want to replay the summer?
There will be brighter days ahead.
Will the weather be clearer tomorrow?
We will deal with that motion later. Is the late sitting agreed? Agreed.
I am not certain why the motion was not moved earlier. This is a technical measure and I will come back to the Deputy on it. I am advised the motion must be moved by 31 December.
Are the proposals for dealing with Nos. 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 agreed? Agreed. Are the arrangements for taking Supplementary Estimates agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 14 agreed?
It was agreed at a Whips' meeting that on No. 14 spokespersons could share time and I ask the Tánaiste to agree to that.
Yes, I am happy to agree to that.
Is the proposal for dealing with No. 14 agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 1 agreed?
Can I clarify with the Tánaiste if the Government is satisfied that this creative accountancy is not a money Bill and that it is in order for us to take it? I do not wish to engage in a debate on this, but I remind the House that this is a device to enable us to assign £100 million expenditure today, 16 December 1997, which cannot possibly be spent between now and the end of the year, so as to massage the figures for next year. This relates to the £250 million for our education system, which we all support. Are the Tánaiste and the Government satisfied since this Bill started in the Seanad that it is not a money Bill and it is in order to bring it in this way?
I understand this is a matter for the Ceann Comhairle to rule on and he has ruled that the method in which the Bill was brought into the Seanad is in order.
Has the Ceann Comhairle told the Leas-Cheann Comhairle that he has so ruled?
I understand there was a ruling on this by the Ceann Comhairle this morning and I was informed he had so ruled.
What is a money Bill?
It has to involve more than £250 million.
If Deputy Rabbitte contacts the Ceann Comhairle's Office I am sure he will be informed on that.
This is a funny money Bill.
Is the proposal for taking No. 1 agreed? Agreed.
The procedure for taking the Bill is not disputed, but the proposal is not agreed. However, the proposal for taking No. 1 is agreed.
Will the Tánaiste give information on the Government's plans to commemorate the 25th anniversary of Ireland's accession to the European Union on 1 January next? Will the Tánaiste explain the reasons for the Government's delay in publishing the long promised White Paper on the Amsterdam Treaty in view of the Government's apparent intention to hold a referendum to approve that treaty early in the new year?
Discussions are going on within Government, which the Taoiseach is handling, on an appropriate celebration of our 25 years' membership of the European Union. The Taoiseach will be in a position shortly to make announcements in that regard. The White Paper will be published in February.
Will the Tánaiste agree that is far too late? What is the reason for the delay? The treaty was agreed in June. What is the reason for not having the White Paper ready by February?
As Deputy Bruton knows, the treaty was agreed but no other work was done on the preparation of the White Paper.
Why not? The Tánaiste has been in office for six months.
Perhaps the Tánaiste was not present when the Taoiseach gave an answer to the effect that the White Paper was ready, but for reasons of timing and the Christmas season the Government had chosen not to publish it until the new year. I understood that to be January next, but the Tánaiste has now said it will be published in February. The question put by the Leader of the Fine Gael Party is pertinent and relevant. The Tánaiste can correct me if I am misinformed, but if the document is ready why is its publication being delayed until February when it was expected it would be published as soon as business commenced in the new year, in other words effectively in the second week of January?
The Cabinet sub-committee dealing with this matter met last week. The White Paper has not been finalised. My understanding is that it will be published as soon as possible, but February is the most likely date. However, I will come back to the Deputy later if it will be published in January.
What has gone wrong?
The referendum will be held in March or April.
Or May or June.
Or July.
That is not good enough.
The Taoiseach said that he intends to engage the other leaders in consultation on that matter. As soon as the White Paper is completed he will do that.
I hope the Tánaiste is not suggesting that the other party leaders will be used as an excuse for the non-publication of the White Paper.
I appreciate the Tánaiste is in a somewhat difficult position in that she is not necessarily responsible for undertakings given by the Taoiseach on the floor of this House, but presumably she is informed as to what commitments have been made. Will the Tánaiste clarify what she has now put on the record, that we will have a referendum in March or possibly April, that there will be consultation with the other party leaders and that the White Paper, which will inform the debate subject to the containment decisions of the McKenna judgment, will be published some time in February? That is at variance with the information we have received from the Taoiseach from the seat she now occupies.
It would be a pity if she had misled the House.
She may wish to reflect upon it and inform us tomorrow morning because she does not seem to be in possession of all of the facts as they are understood by this side of the House. If I am wrong, she should correct me.
I am a member of the Cabinet sub-committee. It met last week. The White Paper is not finalised. It may well be finalised by the end of January but it will be late, rather than early, January, as I understand it now.
On the referendum and the time of it, we want to consult other party leaders because we want to have a cross-party approach to this issue if possible.
I find this extraordinary, because I raised this question a number of times, both at Question Time with the Taoiseach and on the Order of Business, and had been repeatedly assured in the first instance that the White Paper would be published before Christmas. Recently I was told the White Paper was completed but, for reasons of publicity, would not be published until early in January and that the referendum would definitely take place in March. We are now told not only that the White Paper will not be published in January but that it is not even ready yet, that it may be published in late January or early February, and that we may or may not have a referendum in March — it may take place in April or at some other time.
Has the Deputy a question?
Why have we had to wait until the Tánaiste sits into the Taoiseach's chair to be informed of these things? One would have thought the Taoiseach would have told us when we repeatedly asked questions.
Recently the Taoiseach indicated that he proposed to introduce legislation to provide for Government spending on promoting the Government view on the Amsterdam Treaty. When can we expect to see it? Will it provide resources for Opposition parties to present their view of the Amsterdam Treaty?
I am hoarse so I ask the Deputy to bear with me. I will quote the Taoiseach on when the referendum will be held
Clearing out skips is dusty work.
At least the Deputy cannot say we are not open and transparent.
Dusty and transported.
The phrase is back to haunt the Tánaiste.
I do not think so.
The Tánaiste without interruption.
We did not promise to run this Government as if it was behind a pane of glass.
On what the Taoiseach said about referenda and not about skips — he said it would probably be held in the Spring, hopefully in March.
The Taoiseach misled the House.
For Deputy De Rossa's information, there is no difference between what the Taoiseach said and what I said. We will publish the White Paper as soon as we can. We will consult with other party leaders.
On the referendum and the financing of the campaign, we would like to consult other party leaders on that matter also.
We have had a long debate about this and we should not have allowed it go on so long. Deputy De Rossa, I ask you to resume your seat when I am on my feet.
With regard to legislation on funding, Deputy De Rossa asked that funding be provided for Opposition parties. I suggest it would be far better to provide equal funding for both sides, seeing as it is a referendum. Is that the Taoiseach's intention?
Legislation on this matter is at an early stage of consideration but any funding would have to be provided on a fair and equal basis to both sides of the campaign.
Sixteen days ago the Taoiseach said in this House that the White Paper on the Amsterdam Treaty would be published before Christmas.
That is repetition. We will not have a debate on the issue.
Why has this been delayed for two months? It is a simple question.
What the Taoiseach said was that he hoped to finalise it before Christmas. The Cabinet sub-committee met last week. It will not be published before Christmas because it is not ready.
Why?
It is not ready. It is important that we get the White Paper right even if it takes more time.
What is wrong with the present one?
((Dublin West): On promised legislation, amending legislation to put back the 1998 local elections must come before the Dáil before that can be agreed. When will this Bill to enshrine this disgraceful attack on local democracy be put before the Dáil? Is there a danger that local authority members serving nine years will consider themselves councillors for life to carry on rezoning and various other activities?
They will never be members of a vocational education committee for life.
The Bill has been approved by the Cabinet and it will be published early in the new year.
Is it the intention of the Minister for Finance to follow the precedent set in recent years to make an advance statement of the primary provisions of the Finance Bill? If so, when will he do so? When is it intended to publish the Bill?
The Deputy can take it the Minister will follow tradition.
Does the Government intend producing a waste disposal Bill? I draw the Tánaiste's attention to the fact that on 18 November the Minister for Health and Children advised the House with great solemnity that if legislation was published on the substantive issue of abortion, there would be reference to the people through Article 27 of the Constitution. Will the Tánaiste state whether the Government has now done a U-turn and changed its policy on that issue? That was announced as a Government decision yet the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell appeared to announce last Friday that is no longer the position and there will not be reference to the people through Article 27. Will the Tánaiste clarify that?
Clearly I have a big interest in waste at present and I understand the waste Bill is at a very early stage.
A Deputy
Is it only a trial run?
(Dublin West): The Tánaiste has thrown local democracy into the skip.
We could throw many of Deputy Joe Higgins's policies into the skip.
A Cabinet sub-committee has been appointed to examine the issue of abortion. Clearly there are other provisions under which that could be put to the people other than through Article 27 of the Constitution. The Government is committed to consulting the people on any way we might move on this issue.
Has the Government abandoned its policy now?
I call the Deputy Quinn. Deputy Shatter, when the Chair is on his feet, please resume your seat.
The Tánaiste wants to answer. The House was given information and the Government has now changed its mind. That should be put on the record.
I call Deputy Quinn. We must have order in the House.
This is the third last occasion between now and 28 January on which on the Order of Business we can ascertain the Government's intention with regards to legislative proposals. I want clarification on what the Tánaiste said in respect of the Green Paper on what is known as the substantive issue. Will she confirm that it had been proposed, all other things being equal, to refer the conclusions of the Green Paper on the substantive issue to the All-Party Committee on the Constitution and legislation would subsequently be referred to the electorate under Article 27? I understand that is no longer necessarily the Government's position.
The Tánaiste stated there are other ways in which this matter can be referred to the public. Does the Government have legislative proposals to provide for a plebiscite to give effect to that or is it envisaged there will be a referendum to change the wording of the Constitution? As I understand it, other than changing the wording of the Constitution there are no legislative provisions for what would be termed a "reference" or "plebiscite". Has the Tánaiste committed the Government to some form of plebiscite? Will she indicate if there are legislative proposals to make way for the mechanism, in legislative terms, for a plebiscite procedure which does not currently exist?
The Government is anxious to prepare a Green Paper and has established a Cabinet sub-committee to assist in the preparation of that paper. When the Green Paper is completed it will be sent to the all-party committee. The Government has already expressed the view that if it is to introduce legislation to deal with this issue on foot of the judgment in the X case it will be anxious to consult the public. However, the Government may not make such consultations under Article 27 of the Constitution because of the obvious difficulties in respect of that matter. What is important is not the Article under which we consult the public in respect of possible legislation, but that we will consult the people on this matter.
I call Deputy Gormley.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle——
I have called Deputy Gormley.
I ask Deputy Gormley to bear with me.
We cannot have a debate on this issue. The Tánaiste answered Deputy Quinn's question. I have asked other Deputies who stood up and were out of order to resume their seats and I ask Deputy Quinn to do so now.
May I ask a brief question?
No, we must have order on the Order of Business. I ask Deputy Quinn to resume his seat when I am on my feet. Deputy Gormley is offering.
Perhaps Deputy Gormley, as a constituency colleague, will give way to me.
I will agree if Deputy Gormley wishes to give way. I will then take a final question on the Order of Business from Deputy Donal Carey.
On the Order of Business, I believe I am in order to pursue a matter of legislative intention on the part of the Government.
Yes, but the Deputy is not entitled to engage in a debate on the matter.
I am not seeking a debate, I am seeking information. On the basis of the Tánaiste's previous reply, do I take it the Government will not use Article 27? If that is the case, does it have legislative proposals to provide for a plebiscite? To the best of my knowledge there are no legal provisions for such a consultation process with the electorate under the Constitution. Does the Government have proposals for a plebiscite?
If not, the alternative will be that there must be a change in the wording of the Supreme Court judgment in the famous X case.
The Government never made a decision to proceed under Article 27.
It never made such a decision?
No. The Government has not made a decision in respect of this matter except to establish the Cabinet sub-committee with a view to preparing the Green Paper. The Government is anxious to consult the public in respect of any legislation it might introduce. Just as, in the case of the divorce issue, it was clear——
Will a constitutional amendment be introduced?
There are ways other than by way of Article 27 in which we may proceed.
The Tánaiste does not know what she is talking about.
I do.
On a point of order, I draw the Tánaiste's attention to column 1532 of the Dáil report——
That is not a point of order.
The Minister for Health and Children made a statement——
Deputy Shatter will resume his seat when I am on my feet. I call Deputy Donal Carey to put a final question on the Order of Business.
The Minister for Health and Children's statement is a matter of record.
I call Deputy Carey.
Which committee will have responsibility for dealing with the Local Authorities (Amendment) Bill? Will the Tánaiste consider having the heads of the Bill debated by the relevant committee to avoid a gerrymander? As I understand it, the Minister for the Environment and Local Government stated he has responsibility for adjusting all local authority areas. Will the Tánaiste confirm that the Minister and Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government, Deputies Dempsey and Molloy, can be trusted to adjust the electoral areas?
The Deputy's party did not do a good job on the last occasion on which it tried to adjust them.
These matters are dealt with in the local government funding Bill which will be published shortly after Christmas. Any mechanism to change electoral boundaries will be independent. There have been substantial changes in population since the last local elections were held.
On a point of order, will the committees appointed by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government to consider electoral areas and services be placed on a statutory footing?
That matter will be provided for in the Bill which will be published after Christmas.