It is proposed to take Nos. 11 and 12. It is also proposed, subject to the agreement of the House, that business shall be interrupted at 10.30 p.m. tonight: the proceedings on the Committee Stage of No. 11 if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 10.30 p.m. by one question which shall be put from the Chair and which shall, in relation to amendments, include only amendments set down by the Minister for Health, the sitting shall be suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 7 p.m. By agreement there will be no Private Members' Business today.

On the Order of Business, Sir, the order does not include item No. 54, my motion of no confidence in this Government and in their declared broadcasting policy. I believe, Sir, that before we waste the time of this House debating this folly of a Bill which the Government have brought before us, we should establish the issue very clearly. We know the Government are split on this issue, the Progressive Democrats are now saying they disagree with it. We know a great many Members in Fianna Fáil disagree with it yet the Government continue to press on with this folly. This matter should be put before the House today——

If the Deputy is objecting to a particular aspect of the Order of Business, I wish to know——

I object to an Order of Business that does not include this. The Government are running away from their responsibilities——

Otherwise I shall put the global question.

This is uniquely an on which occasion we could debate a motion of no confidence in this fractionated Government.

Deputy Dukes, this is not in order. Is it agreed that the business shall be interrupted at 10.30 p.m.?

It is not agreed.

I am anxious to ascertain from Deputy Dukes if I can put the order of questions as announced by the Taoiseach globally or am I expected to go through each of the four items?

No. 1 is not agreed.

Are the proposals for dealing with No. 11 agreed? Agreed.

Are we finished with the Order of Business?

Not yet. Is it agreed that the sitting be suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 7 p.m. this evening? Agreed. Is it agreed that there be no Private Members' Business today? Agreed.

In relation to promised legislation — the Broadcasting Bill — which was published last week may I ask at this juncture if the Taoiseach would accept that he owes the House an explanation why the Communications portfolio, since 1987, has been dragged through three other Departments — Energy, Industry and Commerce and now Justice? Does he accept that this was a fundamental error? Given the debacle in which the Minister landed himself because of the publication of this Bill last week, does the Taoiseach now accept that a separate Ministry for Communications should be established?

This is anticipating our discussion of tomorrow.

Lastly, in relation to promised legislation——

Please, Deputy Spring.

——given the divisions that now prevail between the missing partners in Government and the Fianna Fáil Party — does the Taoiseach accept that the Bill should now be withdrawn?

The Deputy is anticipating tomorrow's debate on the Broadcasting Bill.

We would all be saved a lot of effort if that Bill was withdrawn given the obvious divisions that exist and the fact that the Minister does not have the support of the Government parties.

That is for tomorrow.

Perhaps the Taoiseach would give the House an indication whether he intends to proceed with this legislation tomorrow.

The last question by the Deputy is in order. Is that so?

Yes, it is in respect of promised legislation.

We propose to proceed with this piece of Government legislation tomorrow as planned.

Will there be no more secret meetings?

It is not to this side of the House the Deputy should address that question.

I want to put a question to the Taoiseach——

We can have a good discussion on it tomorrow.

With the Minister, Deputy O'Malley?

There has not been much discussion on it in the Taoiseach's own party.

Please, let us hear Deputy De Rossa.

On 22 May I put down a question to the Taoiseach for oral reply on 30 May regarding any plans he may have to meet Mr. Brooke, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but this was transferred to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The Taoiseach had a meeting with Mr. Brooke on 28 May and I submitted a question to him for reply on 6 June asking if he would indicate to the House what matters had been discussed and if he would make a statement to the House on the matter. That question was also transferred.

The Deputy is on a tangent now and seems to be completely out of order.

I do not believe I am, a Cheann Comhairle. Please hear me out.

Come to the point.

I am coming to it. That question was also transferred to the Department of Foreign Affairs by the Department of the Taoiseach although it related specifically to a meeting the Taoiseach had with Mr. Brooke. May I ask the Taoiseach at this point if he intends to make a statement to the House on the discussions which have taken place between himself and Mr. Brooke or, if he believes the matter is too sensitive to be dealt with on the Floor of the House, would he take up the suggestion I made previously at Question Time that he brief the party leaders here on the issues concerned?

I have allowed Deputy De Rossa quite a lot of latitude. The matter to which he refers in my opinion is not relevant to the Order of Business.

A Cheann Comhairle, I have no other way of raising this matter with the Taoiseach.

Deputy De Rossa, please resume your seat.

Would the Taoiseach take the opportunity to brief the leaders of the parties here on the issues concerned?

Deputy Liam Kavanagh.

Will the Taoiseach respond?

Nixdorf Computer International Limited have indicated that they intend to cease operating in Ireland on 16 July. I asked you, a Cheann Comhairle, to allow me raise a Private Notice Question in this House today and I cannot for the life of me understand why this request was refused since it is a matter of the greatest urgency. Since the beginning of this year 380 jobs have been lost in this company and the county is certainly suffering——

I have conveyed my decision to Deputy Kavanagh and other Deputies in respect of this matter. He may not challenge my ruling in this fashion. He knows there are other ways of dealing with this matter.

I am at a loss to understand why you allowed a Private Notice Question on Waterford Crystal and on some——

Deputy Kavanagh, please desist.

I fail to understand how you can——

The Deputy is not helping his case by challenging the Chair in this fashion.

The people in Bray are not being helped by the Minister who is not here today.

That will do. Deputy Ryan.

This is the only method open to me to raise this urgent matter.

I have conveyed my decision to the Deputy.

Would you allow me to raise this matter? I cannot understand the decision you have taken.

Is the Deputy seeking my permission to raise it on the Adjournment?

That seems to be the only method open to me but certainly——

I repeat that the Deputy is not helping his case by challenging the Chair in this fashion.

A Cheann Comhairle——

Let us leave it at that then. Deputy Ryan.

I cannot understand——

I will not hear the Deputy further.

I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

On two occasions in recent weeks I have endeavoured to raise on the Adjournment the subject matter of Santry Woods but on both occasions you indicated that this was a matter for the local authorities and I accepted your ruling, but in the intervening period the local authorities have taken decisive action which I welcome. However, on this occasion I wish to raise on the Adjournment the future of Santry Woods and the role the Government and other agencies can play in this.

I will communicate with the Deputy.

I would like——

Deputy Ryan need not elaborate now. I will communciate with the Deputy.

The Minister of State at the Department of the Evironment gave a promise——

The Minister of State at the Department of the Environment has visited the area and met with local interested groups.

I seek permission to raise on the Adjournment the threatened strike at FÁS and its likely effect on FÁS trainees, the people employed in the social employment scheme and people who now seek employment.

I will be in touch with the Deputy concerning the matter.

On the Order of Business, may I ask the Taoiseach to indicate if it is intended to allow a debate in Government time on our laws relating to asylum for refugees?

That does not arise now, Deputy.

May I ask the Taoiseach if he is aware that it is proposed at a Council of Ministers meeting in Dublin next week to ratify the harmonisation of laws on asylum for refugees throughout the European Community?

The Deputy should put down a question on that matter.

What is the Government's stance on the matter? May I ask the Taoiseach and the Minister for Justice how many questions the Minister for Justice has taken since the last election?

That is not in order now.

I would like to raise on the Adjournment the serious emigration problem with particular emphasis on the most recent survey conducted by UCC, the results of which were published in today's edition of The Cork Examiner.

I will be in touch with the Deputy concerning that matter.

On the Order of Business, may I raise with the Taoiseach the long promised Solicitors Bill? Can the Taoiseach give any indication of the up-to-date position, whether the Bill has been delayed and, whether recommendations which may emanate from the report of the Fair Trade Commission, which I gather is expected shortly, will be taken on board? Is that the reason for the delay?

Is that legislation promised?

I did not hear the Deputy's last innuendo.

It was not an innuendo. The report of the Fair Trade Commission on the legal services is expected shortly.

That is Mr. T.J. Maher's department.

I am merely inquiring if the reason for the delay in publishing the Solicitors Bill is that a report is imminent. The Taoiseach may not be aware that that report is on the desk of the Minister, Deputy O'Malley.

The Bill is well advanced but certain aspects of it are being considered at present.

Deputy Garland.

Will it be circulated before the end of the session?

Could we have an indication when we will have the Bill?

I have called Deputy Garland.

I do not think it will be this session.

I seek permission to raise on the Adjournment the unsatisfactory situation with regard to the disposal of hospital waste.

I will be in touch with the Deputy concerning the matter.

I seek permission to raise on the Adjournment the location of the proposed marina at Dingle Harbour and my concern that the site chosen should be the one the people want and not the one chosen by private individuals.

I will communicate with the Deputy.

At the conclusion of Committee Stage of the Child Care Bill it was stated that Report Stage will be taken in October. Having regard to the urgency attaching to this legislation and the need for a Child Care Act in this state, may I suggest that Report Stage be taken this session?

I understand there is agreement to bring it back next session.

There seems to be a misunderstanding here. There was no agreement, rather the Minister of State stated that it would take some time to get some documentation——

We cannot debate the matter now. Deputy Owen is offering.

May the speaker finish an important point?

You keep out of this, Deputy McCartan. I have allowed the Taoiseach to reply to Deputy Sherlock.

The point needs to be clarified.

There was no agreement but rather it was stated——

We are not going to argue it now.

This is the Order of Business.

It is evident such legislation is urgent——

The Deputy has made his point, and made it effectively if not eloquently.

In view of this may I suggest that Report Stage be brought forward?

Not this session.

I would like to raise a matter on the Order of Business and another on the Adjournment. First, may I ask the Taoiseach if any progress has been made on the amending legislation to the Citizenship Act, 1986, which will allow us to grant citizenship to 7,000 applicants from outside Ireland, including South Africa, America and Australia? The Taoiseach was kind enough to say some weeks ago that the matter was under consideration. According to the Attorney General this legislation is overdue since 1987.

The legislation is promised but I cannot say it will be taken this session.

What is the matter the Deputy wishes to raise on the Adjournment?

I seek permission to raise on the Adjournment yet again the position at St. Helen's national school, Portmarnock. Because the Department of Education have not paid their bills the parish priest has received a civil bill to go to court.

I am aware of the Deputy's interest in the matter and will communicate with her.

I ask your permission, Sir, to raise on the Adjournment the failure of the Minister for Education to appoint caretakers to many of our schools throughout the country and the disruption to education that has taken place as a result of vandalism and lack of cleanliness in those schools.

I will communicate with the Deputy.

Will the Taoiseach tell me when we may expect the Derelict Sites Bill to be brought back into the House? I believe it was amended by the Seanad. Is there any time schedule?

It is hoped to take it this session.

Because of the incredible delays in the Department of the Environment in distributing the £6.5 million under the recreational and amenity grants scheme which I believe is available, and the fact that there is an application for £160 million worth of grants from various groups throughout the country, I would like to raise on the Adjournment the problems caused by the delay in making a decision as to who is going to benefit from this——

I will be in touch with the Deputy concerning that matter.

I would like to ask the Taoiseach if arrangements have been completed, or when they will be completed, for our debate on European political union in advance of the Summit in Dublin. Further, will he clarify if the Government have reached a decision whether to circulate a paper on Ireland's position in relation to such discussion prior to that date?

I will honour my undertaking to the House to have a discussion on European affairs, particularly in the advent of political union, before the Dublin Summit. I never undertook to publish a paper. I do not think it would be appropriate at this stage to publish a paper in advance of the Dublin Summit.

This matter has been the subject of exchanges in this House in other weeks, and the Taoiseach is correct in saying he gave no commitment to publish a paper but he said it was a matter that had to be considered. Since Ireland is one of the participants, maybe the only one, at the Summit without a stated position on paper, that might be the substance of our debate in this House. Would the debate which he has conceded not be better informed if there was an outline of the various options——

We cannot debate the matter now.

I appreciate the Deputy's interest in the matter now and I know it is widely shared in the House, but since the agenda for the forthcoming Summit is still in the process of formulation it would not be appropriate for the Presidency to publish a paper, certainly at this stage.

That is nonsense.

If the debate takes the usual form I will give as much information as I can in opening the debate.

In view of what the Taoiseach has just said, are the Government not now going to put a paper before the Summit?

I never undertook to put a paper——

Indications were given in the press and in this House that the Government were considering whether they would put a paper before the Summit. Do I understand now that they are not going to produce any paper and that we may be one of the few countries without a paper about European political union? That is intolerable for this House, for the Government and for the Presidency.

The Deputy, as usual, is slightly confused. Deputy Michael Higgins asked if I will submit a White Paper to this House.

No.

That is what he asked.

When I try to be helpful to the House, and to Deputy Michael D. Higgins in particular, the matter only generates controversy.

If the Government are not going to produce a paper, it cannot be debated.

I have just come back——

The Taoiseach is jet lagged.

——from discussing the whole question of political union and how it will be dealt with at the Dublin Summit——

Please let us maintain order and decorum. There is no need for any of this.

It is not up to the Taoiseach to decide. This House should have an input.

The Deputy probably has the least idea about it of anybody in this House.

I have as much idea as the Taoiseach has.

So that every Deputy can be better informed, which is the purpose of having a debate, and because according to my information, at least five countries have submitted papers to the Presidency or to the Council in Brussels, would it not be appropriate for this Government, our Government, also to have a paper setting out the Irish position? Otherwise it appears that we do not have a position on EPU. We should have a position. We might not necessarily agree with that position but at least let us have a position rather than indecision, which looks very weak, going into a very important—

I repeat that we cannot debate this matter now. Deputy Lee.

I would like clarification from the Taoiseach. It appears from what is said to Deputy Higgins that the Irish Government are not going to put a position paper on European union——

We have had all this before.

This should be clarified by the Taoiseach.

The question of political union is being dealt with at the Summit. The Presidency receive the views of all the member states and endeavour to have the matter dealt with at the forthcoming summit in a coherent fashion. That is the obligation and duty of the Presidency.

And the Irish Government are properly entitled to have their own view.

Of course we have——

Have they a view?

Of course the Irish Government have their input into the discussions. I am engaged in a round of European capitals at present in detailed discussions with the Heads of Government about the whole issue of political union, how it should be formulated and how it should be dealt with. In due course I will give as much information about these discussions to the House as I can.

In the meantime, the Deputy should be aware that the Foreign Ministers were entrusted with the task of preparing a paper analysing and examining the issue of political union for presentation to the Dublin Summit. That work is under way A preparatory paper has been prepared by the Foreign Ministers. It is now being further processed through an ad hoc group of personal representatives of Foreign Ministers and there will be a further meeting of Foreign Ministers dealing with that paper for presentation to the Dublin Summit. I think from all that, Deputies will realise that the appropriate time to discuss the issue in this House has to be delicately and sensitively selected. I will do my best to bring as much information to the House about the matter as I can before the Dublin Summit.

A Cheann Comhairle——

This debate is going on too long.

The Chair has allowed quite some discretion in this matter.

If the Taoiseach would answer our question we could dispose of it.

Given that five other countries have put their views on paper——

We have had all this before, Deputy Spring. Deputy Pat Lee has been offering for some time. I am calling him now.

It would not be appropriate for the Presidency to put a specific paper——

Of course it would. That is nonsense.

It would not be appropriate for the Presidency, and the handling of the Presidency is my responsibility.

The Taoiseach is responsible to this House.

You are a bad mannered lot. Will you let me talk?

Democracy and accountability.

It is my responsibility to handle Presidency matters and I want to say, Sir, that I am doing it very well no matter what the Deputy thinks. In reply to Deputy Spring——

I want to make it clear in reply to Deputy Spring's question that in my judgment it would not be appropriate for the Presidency to submit a paper of a type some other member states have submitted. All member states have not submitted papers. A limited number have, but in my judgment it would not be appropriate for the Presidency to submit a paper of that kind. The responsibility of the Presidency as I see it — I think there would be general agreement among my colleagues about this — would be to assimilate and assess the views——

Other people's views.

Yes, of all the member states. Our input comes through the Presidency.

That is not true.

We have already had our preliminary input through the meeting of Foreign Ministers in Parknasilla. A very good document was produced there which has been welcomed by all the Heads of State and the Foreign Ministers have been congratulated on the document they produced so far. That is the way we should proceed.

Could we then see the contribution of our own Minister for Foreign Affairs?

The Minister for Foreign Affairs' contribution to these debates is in presiding over the meetings of Foreign Ministers.

If you want to debate this matter you had better put down a question.

If the Taoiseach is trying to tell this House that the member state occupying the Presidency is entitled to have a separate opinion from his opinion as President he just does not understand——

If Deputy Lee does not offer I am going on to the business ordered.

The Deputy does not understand how the system works.

That is why the Minister for Agriculture is doing nothing for the farmers.

A new found voice, since yesterday.

The Minister for Health might indicate to the House when the report compiled on his invitation by a former chief executive of Aer Lingus plc and Aer Lingus Holdings will be made available, concerning admission policy, discharge and out-patients arrangements——

I thought the Deputy had something relevant to raise.

It is one of the most relevant matters to be raised in the House.

There are procedures for dealing with that. It should not be raised now.

I seek to raise on the Adjournment the failure of the Government and the receiver to find a buyer for Verolme Cork Dockyard and the cost to the State of having a receiver in the yard for so many years.

I will be in touch with the Deputy concerning the matter.

Will the Minister include on the agenda for the debate on political union the proposals in regard to GATT?

We are not going back to the debate on political union.

It is a separate item. It is a different but very important part of the debate.

I will not go back to that debate.

The Taoiseach said a week ago that he would consider the matter.

I am calling the next business. Deputy Farrelly, desist.

Can I ask the Taoiseach——

No.

——if he will include on the agenda the GATT proposals? It is a matter of a simple "yes" or "no".

I am calling the next business.

On a point of order, it is promised legislation. There is a debate promised on political union. The Taoiseach spoke about it already today. Will our position on GATT be discussed on that occasion?

I am not going back to it. Resume your seat or leave the House.

I intend to raise this matter tomorrow.

It is immaterial. You will not taunt the Chair with a remark like that.