It is proposed to take No. 8b, motion re sittings and business of the Dáil; No. 14, Electoral (Amendment) Bill 2004 — Second Stage (resumed); No. 16, Equality Bill 2004 [Seanad] — Second Stage (resumed). It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that No. 8b, including any amendments thereto, shall be decided without debate by one question which shall be put from the Chair and that the resumed Second Stage of No. 14 shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 1 p.m.
Order of Business.
There are two proposals to be put to the House. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 8b agreed?
It is not agreed. I have received a notice from Máire Ní Ainifín, Aire Stáit ag Roinn an Taoisigh, in respect of the recall of the Dáil on 21 and 22 April. This comes after much obfuscation and lack of clarity on the part of the Government over the past fortnight as to the sittings of the Dáil after Easter. The question was pursued relentlessly by Deputy Rabbitte before the truth was finally dragged out of the Government.
The Government expects Members to return on 21 and 22 April and to sit from 10.30 a.m. until 6.30 p.m. to facilitate the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell. There will be no Order of Business, no Leaders' Questions, no oral or written questions, no Private Members' Business, no matters under Standing Order 31——
Just a little chit chat.
A sham.
——and the taking of any divisions will be postponed until 27 April. What in the name of God does the Government think we are? We have repeatedly asked questions about Government business and how it is being conducted, yet we are expected to return to the House on 21 and 22 April and sit here like lame ducks to listen to dictator McDowell read his script and bulldoze the Bill through by postponing votes until the following week. I object to this. It is outrageous behaviour by a Government which has lost touch with how this House is run. Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats have no concern other than to send in the Minister to read his script, bulldoze the business through the House and to hell with parliamentary democracy. I object.
It appears that there is no respect on the Government side for this institution. It is extraordinary. There are no written questions today and, having concealed from the House its intentions in respect of the citizenship referendum, the Government is doing precisely what I said it would do two weeks ago. It will recall the House a week early to take the Bill, which it had earlier denied it would do. If I knew it, I do not believe that the Tánaiste and the Minister, Deputy Michael Smith, did not know it.
Now, Members are being summoned to the House for a sitting in which none of the normal business will be transacted. There will be no Question Time and no Order of Business. What if a vote is called? Let us suppose my party were to call a vote, as it is considering, on taking Second Stage of the Bill. There is precedent for that. The Chair will postpone the vote until the following week, after we have had the Second Stage discussion. The Members, therefore, will debate Second Stage for two days and then the House will vote a week later on whether it should take Second Stage.
The Government is reducing the House to a farce. I, Deputy Kenny, Deputy Sargent and others will be here debating the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform's brainwave to shore up Fianna Fáil's working class support while the lads are slithering around the doors because they do not have to be here. They will be slithering around while the Opposition keeps the House going.
(Interruptions).
They will be whispering the usual behind their hands, "Sure, we'd send them all back if it was not for the Labour Party." It is a disgrace that the House is being reduced in this fashion.
Hear, hear.
There is a case, though it would be misinterpreted by our vigilant friends in the media, for the Opposition parties saying we will leave the House to the Government on the week after Easter, as we have no rights at all in the House. There is a 50-50 chance that some sections of the media would report it as us not being available to tog out, which is not the issue.
It is.
It is not. What is the point of coming to the House if we cannot observe the modicum of protocol which is part and parcel of the House? The Taoiseach presents the Order of Business, we respond to it and if there are votes then those votes are taken. We should be permitted our normal Question Time, Adjournment Debates and so on. This shows disgraceful disrespect for the institution of Parliament and reveals the naked purpose of what the Taoiseach and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform are about. Their purpose is to exploit for electoral advantage a sensitive issue which, if we must have a referendum, ought to be prosecuted in a calmer environment outside the normal frenzy associated with adversarial elections.
The Green Party agrees with previous speakers on the need to protest violently against this proposal and I use the word "violently" because we see here a cynical, ramrod attempt to distort the Constitution, the basic law of the country.
There are processes involved in informing any public debate, such as producing a Green or White Paper or referring to the established All-Party Committee on the Constitution. After 17 months of considerations that committee produced its ninth volume in a series yesterday, and the previous eight volumes contained dozens of proposals to change the Constitution. Now this cynical, nasty Government wants public discourse on the nature of Irish citizenship over eight weeks.
I agree with Deputy Rabbitte. There is a case for considering what role the Opposition should play in the House over the two days of this proposed debate, though it is not a debate. It is an insult to the people who have chosen us to represent their interests in the Dáil. I appeal to the Government, even at this stage, to have some semblance of dignity and to honour the functions of the House. It should present a proposal to be considered over a longer period so we can have the debate we need on this matter. Then the decision eventually made by the people will be the proper one.
On 25 January last the Government presented its schedule of legislation for the spring session, which ends today. Only six of the Bills highlighted on that list have been addressed since and this proposal was not one of them. Other legislation is being parachuted in, which contributes to the backlog of important legislation which the House should deal with.
We are not opposed to the idea of coming back the week after next, nor, I suspect, are other Opposition Members. We have long argued that there should be longer sittings, which would give greater opportunities to move legislation forward. There would be better participation and an end to guillotines. We have put down amendments to the Order of Business which seek critical changes to the proposition read out by the Minister of Defence.
We seek a change in paragraph (2)(i), to delete "6.30 p.m." and substitute "10.30 p.m." and in paragraph (2)(ii), we seek to delete "no" — in other words, there should be an Order of Business. We seek to delete paragraph (2)(iii) and substitute the following: "(iii) there shall be Leaders' Questions pursuant to Standing Order 26A on Wednesday, 21 April and Thursday, 22 April, 2004." We seek to delete paragraph (2)(iv), and substitute the following: "(iv) oral and written questions shall be taken at 2.30 p.m. each day for one hour and fifteen minutes". We seek to delete paragraph (2)(v), and substitute the following: "(v) Private Members' business shall be taken at 7 p.m. on Wednesday, 21 April, 2004, for 90 minutes to adjourn until 7 p.m. on Thursday, 22 April, 2004, to conclude at 8.30 p.m."
We seek to delete paragraph (2)(viii), which indicates that divisions will be postponed until the following week. That proposal is an absolute nonsense and is a recipe for people not attending the House. It creates an illusion that the House is sitting and seriously addressing issues, when the reality is that if a vote does not have to be taken, many Members, particularly Government Deputies, will simply not be here. There will no whip on them and no onus on them to be here. Other Bills need to be addressed as a matter of priority and while we do not claim a monopoly of wisdom on which should be dealt with, we commend the Equality Bill 2004 as legislation which could be addressed in those two days. This so-called Twenty-seventh Amendment of the Constitution Bill is an absolute disgrace and, on my first reading of its wording today, it is even worse than what I expected from the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Government Members should view a future based on this proposition with shame. Shame on both parties in the coalition.
I formally move the amendment to the proposed Order of Business——
It is not appropriate to move the amendment now. As the Deputy knows we are discussing the proposal on how to deal with the measures. We are not discussing the motion at this stage.
How can we take this without debate when there is an amendment before the House?
That is not what we are discussing. It is not appropriate to move the amendment now.
Where is the precedent for that decision? Is the Chair going to make a decision——
The Chair has ruled on the matter.
The Chair may rule, but on what precedent?
If the Deputy reads——
It is very rare that an amendment is presented in formal, tabled form before the House. I see no precedent for this in my years here. To what precedent is the Chair referring? There is a formal amendment——
If the Deputy goes back to 1992 he will find precedents.
The procedure which applies to best practice in such matters is that the amendment is taken first. I urge the Chair to adhere to that practice and to put the amendment first. That would be adhering to correct procedure and Members would have the opportunity to exercise their decision-making based on choice. There is an option.
The Chair is following the correct procedure. There are precedents. The Chair has ruled.
How can the Chair ignore an amendment——
The Deputy should show some respect for the Chair.
There is respect for the Chair but there is a flip side to that, respect for the Deputy.
If the Deputy wishes to come to the Office of the Ceann Comhairle he will get all the explanations he wants. I have already told him to read the debates from 1992 and he will get an explanation.
On a point of order — at least I think it is a point of order, I know the Chair will guide me — can we have an explanation for the fact that no written questions are being dealt with today?
That is not a point of order. That matter was dealt with in the House yesterday.
It was not.
It was decided by the House.
It was decided by the dictators.
It was decided by a vote in the House.
This is Dáil reform.
Nothing has been concealed from this House. The decision by the Government only last Tuesday, in regard to the taking of the referendum on 11 June——
We do not believe the Minister.
We have bad memories.
A Deputy
Was it a proper meeting?
I reject the implication put about by a number of speakers in regard to the contributions made by Fianna Fáil Deputies here and their attendance. There is no question or doubt that the attendance of our Deputies and their contributions——
Excellent, as always.
——compare more than favourably. If the Deputy wants figures produced for that they can be made available.
We have the figures.
Allow the Minister without interruption, please.
It is interesting to hear from the Deputies who like to keep the dignity of this House and lecture us about it and the way they are contributing. I would inform Deputy Ó Caoláin that 12 Bills have been published, nine of which are from the A list; one Bill has been approved by the Government and is awaiting publication; ten are expected before the next session and five will not be ready until after the beginning of the next session. The Deputy talked about the schedule prepared in January. That schedule did not include any Dáil sessions on 21 or 22 April. The House was going to be in recess. Members are getting two extra days——
(Interruptions).
Allow the Minister without interruption, please.
——and 16 hours extra are being provided for a debate. This will enable every Deputy in the House to have an opportunity to speak on these issues if they so wish.
Sixteen hours of chit chat.
Question put: "That the proposal for dealing with No. 8b be agreed to.”
The Dáil divided: Tá, 64; Níl, 51.
Tá
- Ahern, Noel.
- Andrews, Barry.
- Ardagh, Seán.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Brady, Johnny.
- Brady, Martin.
- Browne, John.
- Callanan, Joe.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Carey, Pat.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Collins, Michael.
- Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.
- Cregan, John.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Curran, John.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- Devins, Jimmy.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Fleming, Seán.
- Fox, Mildred.
- Gallagher, Pat The Cope.
- Glennon, Jim.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Hanafin, Mary.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Hoctor, Máire.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Keaveney, Cecilia.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kelly, Peter.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Seamus.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Lenihan, Conor.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDowell, Michael.
- McGuinness, John.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Mulcahy, Michael.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
- O’Connor, Charlie.
- O’Dea, Willie.
- O’Donovan, Denis.
- O’Keeffe, Batt.
- Power, Peter.
- Power, Seán.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Sexton, Mae.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Smith, Michael.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Wilkinson, Ollie.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wright, G. V.
Níl
- Allen, Bernard.
- Boyle, Dan.
- Breen, Pat.
- Broughan, Thomas P.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burton, Joan.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Costello, Joe.
- Cowley, Jerry.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Crowe, Seán.
- Cuffe, Ciarán.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Enright, Olwyn.
- Ferris, Martin.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Harkin, Marian.
- Hayes, Tom.
- Healy, Seamus.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Kenny, Enda.
- McCormack, Padraic.
- McGrath, Finian.
- McGrath, Paul.
- McHugh, Paddy.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Morgan, Arthur.
- Naughten, Denis.
- Neville, Dan.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- O’Dowd, Fergus.
- O’Keeffe, Jim.
- O’Sullivan, Jan.
- Penrose, Willie.
- Perry, John.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, Eamon.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Stanton, David.
- Timmins, Billy.
- Upton, Mary.
- Wall, Jack.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Hanafin and Kelleher; Níl, Deputies Durkan and Stagg.
Question declared carried.
Is the proposal for dealing with No. 14 agreed?
This is a guillotine and I have consistently opposed guillotine proposals.
The Labour Party is opposed to the guillotining of the Bill. It is another example of a Government that thinks it owns the electoral process, the Constitution and, now, the country also.
It does.
The Green Party opposes this proposal on grounds that have been explained. We feel the legislation is particularly unwise and unnecessarily rushed. We will not co-operate with the Government to ensure it is even more rushed.
I strongly object to the Bill. The text presented to us in the Schedule by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform — I question the title — clearly indicates an intent far beyond what would have been expected. Bad and all as that was, this is a damn sight worse and an embarrassment to the Irish people, at home and in the Diaspora.
We are discussing the proposal for dealing with No. 14, the conclusion of Second Stage of the Electoral (Amendment) Bill 2004.
That is fine.
It is a long time since as many hours were allowed to debate particular legislation in the House. Some 20 hours should be satisfactory.
The legislation is illegally before the House.
Question put: "That the proposal for dealing with No. 14 be agreed to."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 62; Níl, 50.
Tá
- Ahern, Noel.
- Andrews, Barry.
- Ardagh, Seán.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Brady, Johnny.
- Brady, Martin.
- Browne, John.
- Callanan, Joe.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Carey, Pat.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Collins, Michael.
- Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.
- Cregan, John.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Curran, John.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- Devins, Jimmy.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Fleming, Seán.
- Fox, Mildred.
- Gallagher, Pat The Cope.
- Glennon, Jim.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Hanafin, Mary.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Hoctor, Máire.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Keaveney, Cecilia.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kelly, Peter.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Seamus.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Lenihan, Conor.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McGuinness, John.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Mulcahy, Michael.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
- O’Connor, Charlie.
- O’Dea, Willie.
- O’Donovan, Denis.
- O’Keeffe, Batt.
- Power, Seán.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Sexton, Mae.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Smith, Michael.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Wilkinson, Ollie.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wright, G.V.
Níl
- Allen, Bernard.
- Boyle, Dan.
- Breen, Pat.
- Broughan, Thomas P.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burton, Joan.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Costello, Joe.
- Cowley, Jerry.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Crowe, Seán.
- Cuffe, Ciarán.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Enright, Olwyn.
- Ferris, Martin.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Harkin, Marian.
- Hayes, Tom.
- Healy, Seamus.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Kenny, Enda.
- McCormack, Padraic.
- McGrath, Finian.
- McGrath, Paul.
- McHugh, Paddy.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Morgan, Arthur.
- Naughten, Denis.
- Neville, Dan.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- O’Dowd, Fergus.
- O’Keeffe, Jim.
- O’Sullivan, Jan.
- Perry, John.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, Eamon.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Stanton, David.
- Timmins, Billy.
- Upton, Mary.
- Wall, Jack.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Hanafin and Kelleher; Níl, Deputies Durkan and Stagg.
Question declared carried.
Before calling Deputy Kenny on the Order of Business, in view of the disorder that occurred yesterday during the course of Leaders' Questions, I am taking the opportunity to clarify the position. The Leaders' Questions facility provided for under Standing Order 26A is confined to leaders of a party or designated leader of a representative group in which no other Member has any standing. The Chair has ruled consistently on that basis, namely that no other Member may intervene even on a point of order. Moreover, the Chair does not have the authority to recognise a Member other than a leader during Leaders' Questions unless Standing Orders are changed to that effect.
Members will appreciate that in order for the Leaders' Questions procedure to be effective as intended by the Dáil in introducing this facility in 2001, both the leader asking the question and the Taoiseach or member of the Government replying should be allowed to do so without any interruption whatsoever. It is in the leader's own interest that this should be observed at all times. The Chair was endeavouring to protect leaders' rights yesterday. I ask for co-operation of Members to ensure that the Leaders' Questions procedure as laid down by this House in Standing Orders is adhered to and that it reflects well on the proceedings of the Dáil.
I do not accept the Chair's ruling. The Chair is wrong. The Chair has made it up.
The Chair is not wrong. If the Deputy reads the salient rules of the House he will see that there are precedents. I refer the Deputy to just one ruling by my predecessor on 14 February 2002.
I read them. The Chair is making up new ones and adding them in. That was a bad day and a bad decision. That does not make a precedent. It is only chit-chat.
Allow Deputy Kenny to contribute without interruption.
Yesterday the Tánaiste indicated that she informed the House on 5 February of the necessity not to bring in primary legislation on this matter. In her reply to my question she stated she had spoken before a relevant Supreme Court case. That was not the situation, as she addressed the House on 5 February and the Supreme Court case was held on 27 January. I invite the Tánaiste to correct the record of the House.
In respect of the matter that has been voted on this morning, my understanding is that in 1998 the Government was given particular advice by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and presumably by the then Attorney General, that a different situation could have been arrived at in terms of citizenship when the Good Friday Agreement was being negotiated. It may well be that if the Government had accepted the advice of the Department and whatever other legal advice it had, this divisive referendum might not now be necessary.
I ask the Minister for Defence, who is standing in for the Taoiseach, if that evidence, advice or information, will be made available to Opposition parties to help us in the preparation for discussion and to help us reach a conclusion on this matter. There had been no meaningful discussion with us on the matter until yesterday.
The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform met the respective spokespersons yesterday. He gave them a significant briefing and an undertaking to have the widest possible consultation and deliberations on both proposals.
That is a sham.
1 April is past.
He committed himself to the fullest possible debate on this issue.
I remind the Minister that the Bill is dated Tuesday.
I will contact the Deputy as to whether the particular aspect of the matter which he has raised can be included in that debate. I will make inquiries for the Deputy.
Dr. Strangelove.
How does the Minister propose we have consultations when the matter has been decided? I am at a complete loss to understand.
The Minister indicated that the House will pay tribute to Maureen Potter later. He is her true successor, having introduced a motion earlier which will require that any vote on taking Second Stage of the Bill to be taken a week after Second Stage has been disposed of. He then informs Deputy Kenny that there will be wide consultation after the event.
Has the Government had discussions with the Northern Ireland parties about the implications of this unilateral change to the Good Friday Agreement?
The matter does not arise on the Order of Business.
Why not?
It must arise at some point.
All aspects relating to this proposal have been considered by the Government.
The Minister should answer the question.
The House is at the beginning of discussing the matter and will be afforded the fullest possible opportunity to do so. The contents of the implementing Bill were placed before the respective party spokespersons yesterday when it was also indicated that there would be the fullest consultation on them.
It was due for publication on Tuesday.
Has the Government had discussions with the parties in Northern Ireland about the implications for the Good Friday Agreement——
That does not arise on the Order of Business.
Why not?
The Deputy knows it does not arise. He should read Standing Order 26.
The Ceann Comhairle's standing has increased this morning because it was evident that the Taoiseach missed him yesterday. Will the Minister give a straightforward answer to the question as to whether there have been discussions with the parties in Northern Ireland?
As I indicated, all aspects relating to this matter have been duly considered by the Government.
What does that mean?
We will not have a debate now.
A Cheann Comhairle——
I ask Deputy Rabbitte to respect the ruling of the Chair.
The people, North and South, endorsed the Good Friday Agreement at the ballot box.
The matter does not arise on the Order of Business.
We have taken the position that the British Government or any other party may not unilaterally review the Good Friday Agreement. Have there been discussions with the parties in Northern Ireland?
I suggest the Deputy submit a question.
It is a "yes" or "no" question.
The matter can be discussed when the legislation comes before the House.
The Minister has not answered the question. What does he have to hide?
He does not know the answer.
Surely the question should be answered.
The Twenty-seventh Amendment to the Constitution Bill, as published, envisages changing the Constitution and having citizenship subsequently defined by legislation. Is it the Government's intention to publish such legislation in advance of a debate in the House and a referendum to be put before the people? If not, it is asking Opposition Members and the electorate to buy a pig in a poke as regards how citizenship will be defined.
I understand the heads of the Bill will be published later today.
The Minister stated that the Bill was shown to the relevant party spokespersons yesterday.
I did not state they were shown the Bill.
He did; it is on the record.
He should take the opportunity to correct his statement.
The spokespersons were shown four bullet points. The Bill had not even been finalised yesterday.
It was a summary document.
We heard what the Minister said.
The term I used was "a brief".
He stated the Bill was shown to the spokespersons.
I ask the Ceann Comhairle for his advice on how the House can debate the issue of decentralisation. Proposals on decentralisation were made in the budget and the implementation group has produced its report but the Dáil has not had an opportunity to scrutinise any of the proposals. Does the implementation report have the status of a White Paper, which can be debated in the House and on which Deputies may ask questions? A stonewalling approach is being taken to scrutiny of the issue. This will be necessary, however, as decentralisation marks an important change to the manner in which the State is run. The Oireachtas deserves to have a proper forum to scrutinise the issue.
The report does not have the status of a White Paper. It is a matter for the Whips to decide when it can be debated if a motion is tabled in the House.
The Ceann Comhairle yesterday asked me to be brief in addressing a matter I have been pursuing for several weeks. I am withdrawing my request to the Government to explain the reason it is not publishing the Diplomatic Relations and Immunities Bill 1967, as amended in 1976. I have spent six weeks trying to obtain information I was promised in the House by the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste, the Minister for Defence and another Minister. It is a great insult to a spokesperson on foreign affairs that an undertaking given in the House at the beginning of business in response to a query is not acted on. Not only is it unco-operative, it is deeply insulting.
I also asked about the Diplomatic Relations and Immunities Bill. I am not in the habit of being disorderly but I have been waiting 41 days for a reply to the question which gave rise to my frustration yesterday. It is not right that Deputy Michael D. Higgins or I should be treated in this way. Even Noah's Ark only had bad weather for 40 days.
The Department of Foreign Affairs indicated yesterday afternoon that it would make direct contact with Deputy Michael D. Higgins.
I do not want direct contact, as I stated yesterday. I want an answer in writing, as promised.
The Minister indicated that the legislation that will give the outworking to the Twenty-seventh Amendment to the Constitution Bill will be published later today. Is that correct?
The heads will be published today.
Will the Minister indicate when the legislation will come before the House, because this Bill may be the first of many now that the issue of citizenship is to be removed from the Constitution and placed in the hands of legislators? When will Deputies have sight of the final text or draft of the Bill? On the issue of consultation, the Minister referred to the questionable briefing opportunity provided at 3:30 p.m. yesterday. What other consultation has the Government engaged in with outside concerns, apart from elected representatives.
The matter does not arise on the Order of Business.
I have asked a question on the legislation to which I expect an answer. The Good Friday Agreement is critical and it is incorrect to suggest that Article 2 is not in any way affected by the Twenty-seventh Amendment to the Constitution Bill.
The matter does not arise on the Order of the Business.
Clearly, there are implications and I need and demand to know what level of consultation took place. The absence of an answer to that question is indicative of the truth, namely, that there has been none. The Government has taken upon itself the notion that it has a monopoly on the wisdom as to how——
I ask the Deputy to resume his seat.
Will the Minister answer the question?
I was one of the spokespersons invited to meet the Minister on the issue. He did not produce implementing or draft legislation or heads of a Bill at the meeting but four bullets amounting to 12 lines. He was quite vague as to when——
The Deputy must ask a question appropriate to the Order of Business.
The matter is relevant to the issue under discussion, given that we will discuss the main issue the week after next. The constitutional referendum refers specifically to the implementing legislation. This legislation must be available to us before we have the debate. Implementing legislation was produced in parallel with the divorce and abortion referendums. Why, in this case, are the legislation and referendum not being published in parallel?
The Deputy has made his point.
Will the Minister indicate a precise time, not only for the publication of the heads of the Bill, which are no real indication——
Deputy Costello has made his point and should resume his seat. He is out of order and he knows that.
The consultations will take place on the draft implementing Bill. It is not the practice to debate that fully until the passage of a referendum. I understand from the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform——
(Interruptions).
The idea that this can be dealt with afterwards is ridiculous.
The Tánaiste gave an undertaking to this House that both Bills would be published simultaneously. The Minister, Deputy Smith, seems to be saying we will get around to the implementation legislation at a later date. That worsens the already farcical system and abuse of process engaged in so far. Is that still the commitment of the Government?
The Deputy has made his point. He must allow the Minister to respond.
The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform had discussions with the respective spokespersons where he outlined the proposed content of the draft implementing Bill and gave them copies of the summary document attached to it. He indicated the Government's commitment to full debate on the Bill when it formally comes before the Oireachtas, after the passage of the relevant proposal, and its willingness to consider reasonable suggestions for amendments to these proposals.
This is a denial of the position expressed by the Tánaiste when she said——
We cannot have a debate on this issue.
How can we come in here on the Wednesday after Easter to debate this if it cannot be clarified now?
The Minister for Defence has made his contribution. We have to move on.
Without the legislation, there is no way there can be an effective appraisal.
Deputies are being given the draft implementing Bill.
When will the Bill be published?
Did the Minister consult with the other Departments?
The Taoiseach may be into signing blank cheques, but we are not.
The heads of the Bill and a detailed explanatory document on the referendum proposal containing the draft of the text of the implementing Bill will be circulated to Deputies today.
When will the Bill be published? The Deputy should answer the question.
In the last 48 hours I have had much correspondence about that matter. The implementing legislation will have an impact on a range of areas. Will it include references to non-immigration policy, worker visas and green cards, all of which will be affected if the legislation is implemented? Why is the Government doing this when the ground has not been prepared for a rational and constructive discussion on the issue?
I will allow one brief contribution from each party and then we will finish on this issue.
We have now established that the Minister for Defence, Deputy Smith, does not know if the Government has had discussions with the parties in Northern Ireland on the implications for the Belfast Agreement. There has been a reversal of the undertaking given in this House by the Tánaiste that both Bills would be published simultaneously so that we might know exactly what we were talking about. The principles set down by the Lenihan committee on how we should go about amending our Constitution have been grossly abused. The Bill is being taken in the minimum time prescribed by law, as if it were a matter of emergency. The Minister now tells the House, without precedent, that the Government has done a 180-degree turn and has published the text of the amendment without supplying the House with the implementing legislation. Deputy Costello was given one sheet of paper with four bullet points yesterday. It is unacceptable and disgraceful that we in this Parliament should be asked to debate this Bill as an emergency measure when we have not seen the full context of the legislation.
This is a further insult to the House. Despite my earlier question, we are still uncertain whether there will be a Bill. Going on the precedent that has existed for other constitutional referenda, where the enabling legislation was published at the same time as the wording for the referendum, we have a Government that is producing proposals that are not thought out and are clearly being rushed. The proposal that the House should meet on 21 and 22 April to discuss a policy that the Government does not realise——
The Deputy must make a brief comment.
I am being brief. This is only my second contribution this morning. Something has to be said to make the Government realise that it is doing a great disservice to the House.
Deputy Smith's responses contradict answers already given by the Tánaiste. I asked him to indicate what consultation has taken place. There is an obligation to consult the Human Rights Commission. The Twenty-seventh Amendment to the Constitution Bill represents a challenge to the human rights of Irish-born children. The human rights of Irish-born children are apart from their citizenship rights. When will we see this legislation?
I am glad to see the Deputy's concern for the human rights of Irish citizens.
Perhaps the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, question mark, will give us the answer this morning. His ministerial colleague has only added confusion and anger. We need the two simultaneously.
The Deputy must resume his seat.
Let there be no mistake that the implications of this measure under the Good Friday Agreement are very serious.
If the House agrees, will the Ceann Comhairle invite the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to make a statement to clarify this important issue? I do not think the Minister for Defence understands the issues.
I have made it very clear that the content of the Government's implementing legislation will be published in the near future so this House, when it is considering the amendment to the Constitution Bill, will know the substance of the Government's proposals on the implementing legislation which will give effect to that amendment.
(Interruptions).
We cannot have a debate on this issue. I wish to move on to the next issue.
The Minister for Defence referred to the wider consultations and discussions on the implementing legislation. I asked him about the evidence given to the Government in 1998 on the consequences of amending Article 2. Will that evidence be available to the Opposition parties for these discussions?
We require an answer.
That does not arise on the Order of Business. It is not a point of order. I call Deputy McManus.
A Cheann Comhairle, it is obvious that if you were not in the Chair, the Taoiseach would be a humble person. Can I have a response from the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform?
We will hear Deputy McManus.
A Cheann Comhairle, a question has been put before you and the Minister has volunteered information.
I am seeking clarification in respect of what the Minister for Defence has said.
The Minister would be allowed to respond if there was something to which to respond.
On a point of order, it is important to be fair to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. He may not be aware of it, but the question was not answered here before he arrived. Has the Government consulted with parties in Northern Ireland on what is a significant change from their point of view?
That is not appropriate to the Order of Business.
It is important that we hear what the Minister has to say. Will he reply? He has a chance to make a statement.
The answer is clearly "No".
The Minister has already answered the question. Deputy Ring——
On a point of order, let us cut out this nonsense. Deputy Enda Kenny raised a question to which the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform either knows or does not know the answer. He now has an opportunity to answer it and should do so.
This is not Question Time.
This is the Order of Business.
We are moving on to No. 8b, motion re sittings and business of the Dáil.
I indicated and so did Deputy Ring.
That is correct, but in accordance with precedent the Order of Business cannot go on all day.
On a point of order——
On the motion re sittings and business of the Dáil, I call on the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach——
I believe Members wanted the opportunity to ask on the Order of Business whether a Government decision——
Sorry, Deputy, that is not a point of order.
——made last night requires secondary legislation.
I call on the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Hanafin, to move the motion.
On a point of order——
On a point of order——
The Deputy cannot raise a point of order when the Chair is about to put the question. The Minister of State to move——
On a point of order——
Is that agreed?
It is not agreed.