It is proposed to take Nos. 1, 9 and 10. It is also proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that: (1) No. 1 shall be decided without debate; (2) the proceedings on the Committee Stage of No. 9, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 2.30 p.m. by one question, which shall be put by the Chair and which shall, in relation to amendments, include only amendments set down by the Minister for the Environment; (3) the Dáil at its rising today shall adjourn until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 28 April 1992.

Is the proposal in relation to No. 1 agreed to?

No, Sir.

I shall therefore put the question in relation to the motion regarding the establishment of an employment committee.

I must now ask whether the proposals for dealing with No. 9 are agreed?

No, Sir, they are not agreed to. This is another example of the way in which the Government have decided to behave. They intend to ram through an important Bill, with about 100 amendments still undebated, between now and 2.30 p.m., without any discussion or agreement between the Whips. It is not satisfactory that such important Bills are put through the House in this manner and we oppose that.

This is another example of Fine Gael Deputies opposing for the sake of opposition.

There were 11 hours of debate on the Second Stage of the Bill, and there was no opposition; and six hours have been provided for Committee Stage. As there was no opposition to the Bill on Second Stage it was reasonable to expect that adequate provision had been made for Committee Stage debate.

It did not proceed with no opposition, that is a contradiction in terms. If there was no Deputy on this side of the House the Taoiseach would have even greater difficulty in saying that.

Order. Deputy Shatter is raising the temperature again.

I shall try to calm the atmosphere. It is important that the House address the issues contained in the Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill in a calm manner. The Bill has profound implications for the way in which planning matters are dealt with in this country. Several important amendments will not be reached in the time frame set out, including ones that challenge the constitutionality of provisions in the Bill. For that reason, I ask the Taoiseach to consider lengthening the period of time allocated for the Committee Stage debate. Well over 100 amendments have not been debated yet.

If the Taoiseach is minded not to move in relation to the provision of additional time and a vote is called on that issue then I ask him to at least allow the provision allowed in relation to the Environmental Protection Agency Bill for Opposition amendments to be accepted, to apply to this Bill also. I hope the Minister for the Environment will at least be able to accept from this side of the House amendments that are reasoned and acceptable.

I agree to the application of the procedure that applied in relation to the Environmental Protection Agency Bill.

May I dissuade Members from the notion that it can be debated now?

The problem in relation to the Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill is that the Government did not even approach the Opposition to seek a time agreement, and we were disposed to a time agreement.

I understood last evening, through the Whips, that the Minister for the Environment would be approaching us about a timescale. No such attempt was made. It is highly unsatisfactory that attempts should be made to ram legislation through the House without even a modicum of consultation.

Where is the Deputy's party leader?

We are being asked to deal with 130 amendments to this Bill, six of which only were dealt with last evening over a number of hours. Despite the fact that the Committee Stage of the Criminal Evidence Bill, 1992 had been scheduled for this afternoon it is quite extraordinary that that Bill was dropped — apparently it is so important — and the Second Stage, resumed, of the Solicitors (Amendment) Bill, 1991 was scheduled for this afternoon. The Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill, 1991 — Committee Stage, resumed — could well have been debated this afternoon without any inconvenience to Members. May I suggest that it is the kind of Bill which should be referred to a special committee of the House for detailed consideration and discussion in view of the large number of amendments tabled to it. It is not acceptable that legislation, whose provisions will have a fairly serious effect on people's rights to appeal to An Bord Pleanála, should be——

The Deputy has made his point adequately. I notice that Deputy Garland is anxious to intervene.

May I propose a compromise rather than waste the time of the House voting on this matter? I suggest we substitute the Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill, 1991 for the Solicitors (Amendment) Bill, 1991 this afternoon which would give us another hour and a quarter; in other words, from the end of Question Time to 5 o'clock. Would that be a fair compromise all round?

I shall have to put the question.

Is the Taoiseach prepared to consider that suggestion?

A green compromise from Fianna Fáil.

I gave Members the one they sought.

Prior to your putting the question, a Cheann Comhairle, may I seek clarification of a matter? The Taoiseach indicated to our spokesman on the Environment, Deputy Jim Mitchell, a moment ago that there was no question of the Fianna Fáil Party being amenable to meet us and discuss a possible compromise.

I did not.

May I put it to the Taoiseach that it was agreed last evening that the Minister for the Environment would contact the Fine Gael spokesman on the Environment with a view to agreeing a timescale, which agreement was totally rejected.

Clever, but it will not wash.

I must put the question on the Order of Business.

A Cheann Comhairle, the Government Chief Whip is offering.

What was agreed last night was that the Fine Gael spokesman on the Environment would contact the Minister for the Environment to ascertain whether some agreement could be reached on the matter, and he left the Chamber——

Rubbish.

I am putting the question: "That the proposals for dealing with item No. 9 be agreed."

A Cheann Comhairle, "as amended".

As amended.

The last item I have to put to the House is that the Dáil at its rising today shall adjourn until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 28 April 1992. Is that agreed?

Not agreed. Given the confusion which has arisen from the statements made by the Government parties yesterday and the complexities of the issues which confront us, I suggest to the Taoiseach that it would be far more in order for us to sit tomorrow to discuss these matters and for the Taoiseach and the Government to outline to this House what they intend doing and whether there is agreement between the Government parties on a course of action. I suggest amending item No. 3 on today's Order of Business by proposing that the Dáil should sit tomorrow until 4.30 p.m.

That is one way of dealing with the matter. However, a more appropriate way of dealing with it is for the Taoiseach to tell the House now the precise position in relation to the Maastricht Protocol and the referendum on the Maastricht Treaty. There is confusion between the Government parties; there is confusion in the Taoiseach's party——

Let us deal with these matters item by item.

There is confusion on that side of the House. Deputy John Bruton said one thing and the next day Deputy Shatter said something different.

There is no confusion over here.

Please, Deputy Barry.

No effort is being made by the Government to discuss these matters. It is evident that they do not know what is going on in Europe.

I am dealing with the proposal to adjourn the House. I call Deputy Proinsias De Rossa, whom I assume is going to refer to this matter.

If Fianna Fáil had been constructive in 1983 they would not be in the mess they are now in.

It was the Deputy's party who caused the problems in 1983.

Deputy Roche has got his voice back. He still has not got promotion——

Fine Gael should check the facts in regard to the 1983 referendum.

I am being helped again by Deputy Shatter.

In regard to the adjournment of the Dáil today, I suggest that we sit tomorrow or some day early next week to discuss the Maastricht Protocol. I make this suggestion arising from the statement made by the President in office, the Portugese Minister, Mr. Martins who pointed out that they were still considering an amendment to the Protocol and that the matter was not yet closed.

Extraneous matter is being brought into the debate.

This raises a serious question as to how the Government are proceeding in this area. We need clarification——

Please, Deputy De Rossa, it is sufficient to indicate whether you are for or against the proposal.

Why was I not allowed to elaborate on my point?

The Chair is seeking to maintain order, Deputy Barry. Please help him.

I am seeking to get clarification from the Taoiseach either today, tomorrow or next week——

We are dealing with a separate matter now. I am putting the question——

A Cheann Comhairle——

This cannot go on. I am putting the question in respect to the date——

On this subject——

On that point——

Please, Deputies.

I think I am in possession——

When the Chair is standing no one is in possession. Resume you seats, Deputies.

Deputy Barry, I am still standing.

You made me shut up but you let Deputy De Rossa speak.

The Chair strives earnestly to be impartial in this House.

Will you allow the Taoiseach to reply to the Leader of the Labour Party in respect of the proposal to sit tomorrow? In all honesty, the Taoiseach did not get an opportunity to reply.

If the Taoiseach wishes to intervene in respect of that pertinent point on the motion for the adjournment he may do so.

Nobody on this side of the House has said anything——

If the Taoiseach wishes to intervene——

I am now offering——

He is a consensus Taoiseach.

When the Opposition are ready to listen——

We will be told.

There was no opposition from the Whips in regard to the Adjournment of the Dáil.

The Whips were told only yesterday.

Question Time yesterday dealt with the matter which was raised here today. The Attorney General is in Brussels to get clarification on the exact legal requirements in relation to the matter which Deputy De Rossa raised.

(Limerick East): Is it safe to let the Attorney General go alone to Brussels?

We want everybody to be clear on the position. If there is any confusion it is on the Opposition benches. Members on that side of the House should have heard what Deputy John Bruton said on the radio on Tuesday at lunchtime and compare it to what Deputy Shatter said yesterday evening around 6 p.m.

It ill behoves the Taoiseach to say that there is no confusion about this matter when two Ministers in the Government denied being told anything.

Did the Deputies hear the radio interview?

The Government do not know whether to turn the clock back or to go forward.

The President of the Council of Ministers indicated in relation to the reform of the Maastricht Protocol that the matter is not closed. It is very pertinent to the subject under discussion.

That is why the Attorney General has gone to Brussels.

Will the Taoiseach agree to sit tomorrow to hear a report from the Attorney General and a report on the President's statement?

The Taoiseach spoke about confusion. I put it to him that he does not recall what he said in this House on the Order of Business yesterday morning. He said that the question of a referendum was still under deliberation and that a decision would be made in due course.

I did not.

Later on in the House he said that a decision had already been made and agreed to in Cabinet on Tuesday. Where is the confusion?

I will hear a final point from Deputy Spring.

I suggested we should sit tomorrow because there is confusion in relation to this issue.

There is confusion on the Opposition benches.

Not just in this House; there is confusion in the country in relation to this very serious and complex issue.

Hear, hear.

After the Taoiseach's contribution this morning, I still think that we should sit tomorrow and air the views of all parties in this House.